REVIEW 

OF 

DR.  PRESSLY 

ON 


PSALMODY, 


BY  THE 


EEV.  GEORGE  MORTON. 


**Ye  should  earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  which  was 

ONCE  DELIVERED  UNTO  THE  SAINTS/^ — Jude, 


PITTSBURGH, 
PUBLISHED  FOR  THE  AUTHOR,  BY  LUKE  LOOMIS,  AG'T. 
SHRYOOK  &  HACKE,  PRINTERS, 

1850. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2014 


https://archive.org/details/reviewofdrpresslOOmort_0 


PREFACE. 


It  may  not  be  improper  to  state  the  occasion,  which  has  led 
to  the  appearance  of  this  work  before  the  public.  It  is  simply 
this,  that  in  the  discharge  of  his  ministerial  duties,  the  author 
was  called  to  labor  within  the  bounds  of  churches,  where  the 
subject  of  Psahnody  was  much  agitated  by  Psalmonites, — their 
ministers  dwelling  much  upon  it  as  a  theme  of  public  discus- 
sion; and  with  the  usual  aim  of  disturbing,  and  making  inroads 
upon  the  Presbyterian  Church.  And  it  was  found  that  Dr. 
Pressly's  work  on  Psalmody  was  in  circulation,  and  constitu- 
ted the  principal  armory  of  the  Psalmonites,  from  which  they 
were  furnished  with  weapons  to  assail  the  cause  of  truth,  and 
to  do  injury  to  the  interests  of  our  own  beloved  Zion.  In  view 
of  these  circumstances,  the  author  believed  it  would  subserve 
the  cause  of  truth,  to  put  into  the  hands  of  our  people,  a  plain 
and  pointed  review  of  the  Doctor's  work,  which  might  be  used 
as  a  shield  to  protect  them  against  the  continual  assaults  to 
which  they  were  exposed. 

In  the  prosecution  then,  of  this  object,  I  have  endeavored 
to  write  in  a  plain  style,  that  the  plainest  people  might  under- 
stand. And  that  it  might  be  especially  advantageous  to  them, 
has  been  a  prevailing  desire,  in  the  preparation  of  the  work. 
Because  it  is  well  known,  that  they  are  much  plagued  and 
harrassed  on  this  subject,  by  the  continual  interference  of 
Psalmonites.  In  some  sections  of  the  country,  they  seem  de- 
termined never  to  let  this  subject  rest;  and  are  watching  every 
opportunity,  which  they  think  may  be  improved  in  any  way 
for  the  promotion  of  their  own  interests.  And  hence,  Presby-* 
teri^^ns  are  under  the  necessity  of  defending  their  own  prin- 


iv. 


PREFACE. 


ciples  and  practice ;  and  maintaining  what  they  believe  to  be 
the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 

In  exposing  error  and  sophistry,  I  have  employed  great 
plainness  of  speech;  for  in  writings  of  this  kind,  it  is  be- 
lieved, that  honest  christian  candor  is  most  becoming.  I  have 
used  no  fulsome  flattery,  nor  tender  and  endearing  epithets; 
because  to  me  it  seems  like  hypocrisy,  to  pretend  great  respect 
and  veneration  for  one,  while  you  are  exposing  his  fallacies  and 
erroneous  views.  And  on  the  subject  of  Psalmody,  there  are 
writings  in  which  this  is  practiced  to  such  a  degree,  as  must 
be  disagreeable  to  every  honest  hearted  christian.  You  may 
find,  perhaps  in  the  very  same  sentence,  the  honeyed  words 
of  love  and  kindness,  and  then  the  imbittered  accents  of  worm- 
wood and  gall!  But  such  a  mode  of  conducting  controversy, 
I  consider  neither  gentlemanly  nor  christian.  And  as  to  the 
plainness  I  have  used  in  exposing  the  character  of  the  work 
reviewed,  I  considered  it  such  as  the  nature  of  the  case  de- 
manded. When  error,  wrapping  itself  up  in  sophistry,  and 
setting  itself  on  high,  becomes  bold,  and  haughtily  arraigns 
those  who  hold  the  truth,  it  is  surely  then  incumbent  to  re- 
buke it  sharply;'^  and  to  lay  it  bare  in  its  naked  un worthiness, 
that  it  may  be  seen  and  treated  as  it  properly  deserves.  But 
though  I  have  been  plain  and  pointed,  yet  I  can  say  in  honesty 
of  heart,  that  if  there  is  a  single  misrepresentation  of  the  au- 
thor, it  has  been  wholly  unintentional.  And  if  it  is  shown, 
that  in  any  matter  I  have  been  mistaken,  with  the  utmost  cheer- 
fulness will  I  acknowledge  it.  Honesty  and  truth,  candor  and 
fairness,  are  always  commendable,  and  what  I  desire  to  prac- 
tice and  maintain.  And  the  work  is  now  sent  forth  to  the  pub- 
lic, with  the  hope,  that  it  may  subserve  the  cause  of  right- 
eousness and  truth ;  and  by  the  Divine  blessing,  be  instrumen- 
ental  in  promoting  the  best  interests  and  welfare  of  the  church 
of  God. 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


CHAPTER  I. 

No  EYIDENCE  THAT   "^NeODISM   IS   SINFUL. — Dr.    PrESSLY^S  FX- 
FAIRNESS  IN  HIS  COMMENCEMENT  OF  THE  ARGUMENT. 

Every  part  of  religious  worship  is  pleasant  to  thepeo- 
people  of  God.  And  to  the  pious  soul  it  is  especially 
delightful  to  sing  praises  to  the  Most  High.  It  is  natu- 
ral indeed,  for  the  feelings  of  a  grateful  heart,  to  go 
forth  in  a  song  of  thanksgiving  and  praise  to  the  Great 
Giver  of  all  good:  and  cheifly  to  the  heart  of  a  christian 
thus  to  express  his  gratitude  for  the  unspeakable  bles- 
sings of  Redemption.  And  hence  the  universal  senti- 
ment of  the  Church  is,  that  "Great  is  the  Lord,  and  great- 
ly to  be  praised  in  the  city  of  our  God,  in  the  mountain  of 
his  holiness."  But  v^hile  all  are  agreed,  that  w^e  should 
sing  aloud  unto  God  our  strength;  and  make  a  joyful 
noise  unto  the  God  of  Jacob,  it  is  cause  of  regret,  that 
there  is  not  the  same  unity  of  sentiment  in  the  Church, 
as  to  the  songs  with  which  we  shall  praise  the  Lord. 
All  are  agreed  that  in  our  praises,  we  should  give 
unto  the  Lord  the  glory  due  unto  his  name;  but  all  are 
not  agreed  as  to  the  songs  to  be  employed  in  giving 
that  glory.  Some  maintain  that  inasmuch  as  the  glory 
of  God  is  revealed  by  the  whole  of  the  word  of  God, 
therefore  we  should  draw  our  song  of  praise  from  the 

*Two  new  terms  are  used  to  avoid  circumlocution.  Neodism — 
from  neos  and  odee — pleads  for  a  new  Psalmody.  Psalmonism — from 
psalmos  Sind  monos — pleads  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms. 


6 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


whole  of  that  word,  or  else  by  their  use  we  cannot  give 
to  him  the  glory  due  unto  his  name.  While  others 
maintain,  that  no  song  of  praise  should  be  used  in  the 
worship  of  God  but  tliose  found  in  the  Bible.  And  oth- 
ers again  contend,  that  in  our  praises  we  should  be 
confined  to  the  songs  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms. 
The  latter  is  the  opinion  held  by  Dr.  Pressly,  some  of 
whose  views  on  this  subject  it  is  purposed  briefly  to  ex- 
amine. 

The  Doctor's  position  is,  that  the  songs  of  praise  con- 
tained in  the  Book  of  Psalms  should  be  used  in  the 
worship  of  God,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  On  page 
69,  he  says,  decidedly  concur  with  those  who  plead 
for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  Book  of  Psalms.*'  And  on 
page  88,  The  fact  that  God,  has  provided  for  his 
Church  a  collection  of  sacred  songs  which  he  himself 
has  denominated,  *The  Book  of  Psalms,'  is  with  me  a 
conclusive  reason,  why  these  songs  should  be  used  in 
the  worship  of  God,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others." — 
The  Doctor  maintains  then,  that  no  songs  should  be  used 
in  the  worship  of  God  but  those  found  in  the  Book  of 
Psalms.  And  he  intimates,  that  those  who  differ  from 
him,  are  justly  exposed  to  no  small  measure  of  blame. 
In  his  great  zeal  he  represents  Neodists  as  guilty  of 
open  rebellion  agianst  the  authority  of  Heaven:  as  arro- 
gating to  themselves  the  glory  that  belongs  to  God 
alone.  On  page  8,  he  says,  *'When  men  therefore  take 
this  matter  into  their  own  hands,  and  undertake  to  de- 
termine how  God  shall  be  praised,  or  with  what  he  shall 
be  praised,  do  they  not  plainly  arrogate  to  themselves 
that  glory  which  Jehovah  declares  he  will  not  give  to  an- 
other^'  'Now  the  question  may  well  be  asked,  does  tl.e 
Doctor  believe  that  Neodists  are  guilty  of  such  an  awful 
sin  as  this?    The  sin  of  arrogating  to  themselves  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


7 


glory  that  belongs  to  Jehovah!  The  General  Assembly 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  authorized  a  Book  of  Psalms 
and  Hymns  to  be  used  in  the  worship  of  God.  And  does 
Di\  Pressly  believe,  that  the  Ministers  and  Elders  com- 
posing that  Assembly,  arrogated  to  themselves  the  glory 
that  belongs  to  Jehovah]  Does  he  believe  that  there 
was  a  single  man  of  them,  who  wished  to  have  given 
Ifo  himself  the  glory  that  belongs  to  God?  I  presume 
he  does  not.  And  why  then  does  he  intimate  that  such 
was  the  case'?  Does  the  Doctor  believe  also,  that  all 
who  approve  and  sanction  the  doings  of  that  Assem- 
bly are  guilty  of  this  awful  sin'?  Does  he  believe  that 
such  men  as  Dr.  Alexander  and  Dr.  Hodge,  of  Prince- 
ton, and  Dr.  Elliot  and  Dr.  Herron  of  Pittsburgh,  "arro- 
gate to  themselves  that  glory  which  Jehovah  declares 
he  will  not  give  to  another'?"  Surely  he  does  not  so  be- 
lieve. Were  the  public  to  esteem  him  as  thus  believ- 
ing, they  could  not  for  a  moment  consider  him  as  pos- 
sessing the  spirit  of  a  christian.  And  if  the  Doctor  does 
not  believe  so,  why  does  he  represent  them  as  thus 
guilty]  For  such  is  his  representation  every  where 
throughout  his  work.  He  maintains  that  we  have  no 
authority  to  use  any  thing  in  the  praise  of  God,  but  the 
Book  of  Psalms.  And  he  and  we  both  maintain,  that 
we  should  worship  God  in  no  other  way  than  that  ap- 
pointed in  his  word.  Hence,  according  to  his  reason- 
ing, our  way  not  being  appointed  in  his  word,  we  are 
undertaking  to  do  what  God  alone  has  a  right  to  do;  and 
thus  ''plainly  arrogate  to  ourselves  that  glory  which  Je- 
hovah declares  he  will  not  give  to  another.'^  Now,  Dr. 
Pressly  believes,  either  that  these  men  are  thus  guilty, 
or  that  they  are  not.  Take  for  instance  the  case  of  Dr. 
Swift  ministering  in  the  public  congregation.  He  calls 
upon  the  people  to  sing  in  the  worship  of  God  some 


8 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


hymn  from  the  Assembly's  collection.  And  does  Dr. 
Pressly  believe,  that  Dr.  Swift,  in  doing  this,  is  influ- 
enced by  such  haughty  impiety,  and  satanic  pride,  as  is 
implied  in  **arrogating  to  himself  that  glory  which  Jeho- 
vah declares  he  will  not  give  to  another]"  I  am  fully 
persuaded  were  Dr.  Pressly  publicly  to  answer  this 
inquiry  he  would  answer,  No.  He  would  say  he  does 
not  believe  Dr.  Swift  guilty  of  such  daring  impiety. — 
And  in  saying  so,  he  would  admit  all  that  for  which  we 
contend.  Because  he  would  admit,  that  Dr.  Swift  has 
authority  for  conducting  the  worship  of  God  in  the 
manner  in  which  he  does.  And  thus  without  advan- 
cing far,  we  come  to  what  might  be  the  end  of  the  con- 
troversy, namely,  that  we  have  authority  to  use  in  the 
worship  of  God  songs  of  praise  not  found  in  the  Book 
of  Psalms.  Dr.  Pressly  must  admit  this,  or  else  hold 
Dr.  Swift  guilty  of  the  great  wickedness  implied  in  arro- 
gating to  himself  the  glory  that  belongs  to  God.  This 
dilemma  can  not  be  avoided  by  alleging  that  Dr.  Swift 
may  be  acting  without  authority,  and  yet  not  be  guilty, 
inasmuch  as  he  believes  he  has  authority:  because  a 
man's  believing  he  is  right,  never  justifies  him  in  doing 
wrong.  Saul  of  Tarsus  believed  he  was  right  when 
persecuting  the  Church  of  God;  but  that  did  not  make 
him  innocent.  The  Saviour  said  to  his  disciples,  *'The 
time  cometli  that  whosoever  killeth  you,  wull  think  that 
he  doeth  God  service."  But  their  thinking,  that  they 
were  doing  God  service,  in  murdering  his  people,  did 
not  render  them  guiltless.  And  so  in  the  case  of  Dr. 
Swift;  it  matters  not  w^hathe  may  think.  If  he  is  acting 
without  authority,  his  thinking  otherwise  does  not  alter 
the  matter.  He  still  has  no  authority;  and  undertakes 
to  do  what  God  only  has  a  right  to  do;  and  thus  **ar- 
rogates  to  himself  that  glory  which  Jehovah  declares 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


9 


he  will  not  give  to  another/'  But  Dr.  Pressly  holds  that 
he  is  not  thus  guilty;  and  hence  admits  that  he  has 
authority:  and  thus  proves  that  his  own  belief  is  con- 
trary to  his  own  reasoning! 

What  the  Doctor  next  brings  forward  as  an  argument, 
is  the  case  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  sons  of  Aaron,  who 
"offered  strange  fire  before  the  Lord,  which  he  comman- 
ded them  not.  And  there  went  out  fire  from  the  Lord 
and  devoured  them,  and  they  died  before  the  Lord.'^ — 
That  this  is  designed  as  an  argument,  and  that  Neodism 
is  represented  as  similar  to  the  sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu, 
there  can  be  no  doubt;  for  on  page  9,  he  says,  The 
application  of  this  historical  fact  to  the  subject  under 
discussion  is  very  apparent."  And  on  page  10,  he  rep- 
sents  Neodism  as  the  very  identical  sin  of  Nadab  and 
Abihu.  It  is  alleged  that  Psalmonites  can  take  no  part 
with  Neodists  in  the  delightful  employment  of  singing 
God's  praise,  because  they  believe  the  songs  that  are 
used  have  not  the  sanction  of  Divine  appointment. — 
"They  are  compelled,"  he  says,  "to  remain  silent  lest 
they  should  be  chargeable  with  offering  strange  fire  be- 
fore the  Lord."  Thus  he  attempts  to  range  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  Christian  church  in  company  with  Nadab  and 
Abihu;  as  partaking  of  their  sin  and  exposed  to  their 
punishment.  And  he  declares  that  punished  they  will 
be,  just  as  surely  as  that  God  is  unchangeable.  On  page 
10,  his  language  is,  "It  will  not  be  supposed  that  God 
has  less  regard  for  the  purity  of  his  worship  now,  than 
he  had  in  the  days  of  Aaron.  And  though  he  is  not  con- 
fined to  any  particular  mode  of  manifesting  his  displea- 
sure against  the  corruption  of  his  worship,  yet  that  the 
sin  is  now  as  abhorrent  in  his  sight  as  it  ever  was,  and 
that  it  will  be  punished  in  the  way  which  seems  proper 
to  Infinite  Wisdom,  here  can  be  no  reason  to  doubt," 


10 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


It  is  obvious  that  the  Doctor  designed  this  case  of  Na- 
dab  and  Abihu,  as  an  overwhelming  condemnation  of  the 
Neodistic  cause.  But  when  it  is  taken  into  connection 
with  historical  facts,  it  proves  the  very  opposite  of  that 
for  which  he  designed  it.  It  is  true,  the  Lord  abhors 
the  corruption  of  His  worship;  and  that  He  does  not  suf- 
fer it  to  go  unpunished.  But,  has  he  manifested  His 
abhorrence  of  Neodism,  by  punishing  it?  "We  think  there 
here  is  no  evidence  that  He  he  has.  And  if  He  has  not, 
that  is  sufficient  evidence,  that  He  does  not  consider  it 
as  a  corruption  of  His  wor&hip.  The  Doctor  says,  "It 
will  not  be  supposed  that  God  has  less  regard  for  the 
purity  of  His  worship  now,  than  he  had  in  the  days  of 
Aaron."  And  this  is  undoubtedly  true. — True  it  is  also, 
there  is  no  evidence,  that  He  has  ever  manifested  any 
displeasure  against  Neodism.  And  the  inference  is  in- 
evitable, that  He  does  not  look  upon  it  as  a  corruption 
of  His  worship.  If  His  displeasure  has  been  manifested, 
let  the  Doctor  tell  us  how,  and  where  it  has  been  done. 
Where  has  there  even  been  an  individual,  or  a  congre- 
gation consumed  with  fire,  for  praising  God  in  a  song 
not  taken  from  the  Book  of  Psalms'?  And  if  the  Lord 
lias  not  shown  his  displeasure,  by  sending  temporal 
judgments,  has  He  done  it  by  sending  spiritual  judg- 
ments? The  Church  of  Rome  corrupted  the  worship 
of  God,  and  He  manifested  His  sore  displeasure  by  with- 
holding from  her  the  influences  of  His  Spirit;  "by  send- 
ing strong  delusions  that  they  might  believe  a  lie;"  and 
by  leaving  her  to  the  control  of  the  Devil,  and  men  of 
corrupt  minds;  until  she  is  now  become  a  synagogue  of 
Satan.  But  the  Lord  has  not  dealt  so  with  Neodistic 
churches.  As  to  the  evidence  of  the  Divine  presence 
among  them,  they  will  very  honorably  compare  with 
those  we  call  Psalmonistic  Churches,   For  example,  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


11 


Methodist,  Baptist  and  Presbyterian  Churches,  can  ex- 
hibit full  as  many  tokens  of  the  Lord's  favor,  as  can  the 
Associate,  the  Associate  Reformed,  and  the  Reformed 
Presbyterian  Churches.  In  the  former  class,  there  is 
undoubtedly  quite  as  much  vital  piety  and  true  godli- 
ness, as  in  the  latter.  And  we  have  abundant  evidence, 
that  this  is  the  belief,  especially  of  the  Associate  Re- 
formed Church:  because  she  is  very  willing  to  receive 
accessions  from  the  ranks  of  Presbyterians.  Even  those 
who  are  not  in  good,  and  regular  standing  in  the  Pres- 
byterian Church,  are  very  gladly  received  into  her  bo- 
som: showing  that  Presbyterians,  of  an  inferior  quality, 
are  considered  as  good  materials  for  building  up  the 
Associate  Reformed  Church.  And  thus  we  see,  Psal- 
monites  themselves  being  judges,  that  Neodists  are  not 
visited  with  spiritual  judgments,  on  account  of  their 
songs  of  praise.  So  far  from  it,  indeed,  they  seem  rather 
to  be  the  special  objects  of  Divine  regard,  when  com- 
pared with  Psalmonites.  Upon  what  church  has  it  been, 
that  the  Lord,  in  times  past,  has  poured  out  so  abundant- 
ly His  Holy  Spirit]  causing  great  awakening,  and  re- 
sulting in  such  glorious  revivals  of  religion;  making  the 
hearts  of  God's  people  to  sing  for  joy;  and  translating 
multitudes  of  precious  souls  from  the  kingdom  of  dark- 
ness, into  the  kingdom  of  His  dear  Son.  Verily  it  has 
not  been  upon  Psalmonistic  churches;  but  upon  the  very 
churches,  that  Dr.  Pressly  would  represent  as  lying  un- 
der the  special  displeasure  of  Heaven! 

And  besides,  to  these  same  Churches,  the  Lord  has 
manifested  His  special  favor,  by  making  them  the  hon- 
ored instruments  of  spreading  abroad  the  knowledge 
of  His  name:  making  inroads  upon  Satan's  empire;  and 
extending  the  boundaries  of  the  Redeemer's  Kingdom 
upon  earth.    It  is  a  lamentable  fact,  that  Psalmonistic 


12 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


Churches,  in  general,  have  taken  but  little  interest  in 
the  great  work  of  Missions.  And  the  work  has  hith- 
erto been  small  accomplished  by  them  in  this  glorious 
field  of  labor.  Usually  too,  they  have  been  urged  to 
what  they  have  done  by  the  example  and  influence  of 
other  Churches  around  them.  They  have  lain  still  and 
inactive,  until  aroused  and  carried  forward  by  the  on- 
ward and  progressive  movements  of  those  previously 
engaged  in  this  glorious  work  of  the  Lord.  It  would 
appear,  that  inasmuch  as  they  have  excluded  from  their 
songs  of  praise,  all  that  is  peculiar  to  the  Gospel  dis- 
pensation it  has  not  pleased  the  Lord,  to  make  them  in 
any  great  measure,  the  instruments  of  sending  that 
Gospel  to  the  nations  of  the  earth.  And  whether  it  can 
be  accounted  for  or  not,  it  is  a  remarkable  fact,  that 
there  seems  to  be  some  relation  between  a  fondness  for 
Rouse's  Psalms,  and  a  want  of  liberality  for  the  cause 
of  Christ.  In  the  compass  of  my  own  knowledge,  I 
could  refer  to  the  case  of  several  individuals,  for  the 
verification  of  what  I  say.  They  are  great  sticklers  for 
Rouse;  but  very  stingy  in  their  contributions.  I  know 
one,  very  partial  to  the  *'01d  Psalms,"  who  has  several 
times  left  the  church,  during  public  worship,  just  be- 
cause the  pastor,  or  perhaps  an  agent  brought  before 
the  congregation  the  cause  of  Missions,  or  some  other 
benevolent  object.  I  do  not  say,  that  the  use  of  Rouse's 
Psalms  has  any  tendency  to  produce  this  stinginess; 
but  every  careful  observer,  can  easily  see,  that  the  ex- 
clusive use  of  the  one,  is  generally  associated  with  the 
operation  of  the  other. 

Thus  we  see  then,  there  is  no  evidence,  that  the  Lord 
has  ever,  in  any  way,  either  by  temporal  or  spiritual 
judgments,  manifested  His  displeasure  against  Neodism. 
And  the  only  proper  conclusion  is,  that  He  does  not  view 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


13 


it  as  a  corruption  of  His  worship;  for  ''it  will  not  be 
supposed  that  God  has  less  regard  for  His  worship  now, 
than  he  had  in  the  days  of  Aaron.'* 

Now,  Dr.  Pressly  is  perfectly  aware,  that  we  have  giv- 
en a  true  representation;  that  there  is  positively  no  evi- 
dence of  any  kind  tending  to  show,  that  Neodism  is 
similar  to  the  sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu.  And  why  then 
does  he  labor  to  represent  them  as  similar]  Obviously 
for  this  reason,  that  he  might  produce  an  effect  upon 
people  of  serious  minds,  who  do  not  reflect,  that  the 
Doctor  proves  nothing,  while  he  insinuates  a  great  deal: 
that  he  might,  in  the  estimation  of  such  people,  render 
odious  by  false  insinuation,  what  he  could  not  prove 
such,  by  fair  argument.  He  knew  well,  that  what  is 
perfectly  harmless  in  itself,  may  have  a  violent  prejudice 
awakened  against  it,  by  giving  it  a  bad  name,  and  by 
classing  it  with  what  is  known  to  be  detestable.  And 
this  is  the  stealthy,  creeping  kind  of  argumentation,  that 
runs  through  the  whole  of  his  remarks,  concerning  men 
^'arrogating  to  themselves  the  glory  that  belongs  to  Je- 
hovah:'*  and  *'Nadab  and  Abibu  offering  strange  lire:'* 
and  about  "building  altars,  and  offering  in  sacrifice  pigs 
and  kids."  Were  he  to  say,  that  his  remarks  on  these 
things  are  not  designed  as  arguments,  it  would  afford 
no  relief:  it  would  be  a  self-contradiction;  for  as  he 
passes  along,  he  applies  them  to  this  very  subject.  And 
the  obvious  intention  of  them  is  to  strengthen  his  own 
cause,  and  weaken  that  of  his  opponent.  And  is  it 
candid,  is  it  christian,  especially  in  religious  contro- 
versy, to  assume  that  any  thing  is  vile  and  treat  it  ac- 
cordingly, when  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  is  such?  Is 
it  candid,  or  christian,  for  the  Doctor  to  assume,  that 
Neodism  is  like  the  sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  while  he 
has  offered  no  evidence  whatever  to  that  effect?  Surely 
2 


14 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


the  cause  that  receives  for  its  defence  such  a  lurking 
and  cowardly  mode  of  attack,  is  rendered  thereby  doubly 
doubtful.  It  must  have  avv^akened  concerning  it  sus- 
picions exceedingly  unfavorable.  Why  did  the  Doctor 
not  come  openly  and  manfully  to  the  w^ork,  and  prove 
that  Neodism  is  unauthorized  by  the  word  of  God]  and 
then  with  propriety  he  could  have  classed  it  with  the  sin 
of  Nadab  and  Abihu.  The  answer  is  obviously  this, 
he  knew  he  could  not  prove  it;  and  then  he  had  to  as- 
sume it,  in  order  to  classify  it  with  notorious  wicked- 
ness; that  thus  he  might  render  odious  by  stratagem, 
what  he  could  not  prove  to  be  wrong.  It  will  be  seen 
however  as  we  proceed,  that  this  is  but  a  small  speci- 
men of  the  Doctor's  artifice,  in  his  mode  of  managing 
the  controversy. 


CHAPTER  II. 


Psalms  of  Rouse,  not  the  Psalms  of  Inspiration. 

"Happy  is  he  that  condemneth  not  himself  in  that  thing 
which  he  alloweth.''  A  ad  true  it  is,  there  are  many 
who  condemn  themselves  in  the  very  thing  they  allow; 
because  they  act  contrary  to  w^hat  they  hold,  as  proved 
and  established  truth.  Their  faith  and  their  practice 
disagree,  and  thus  they  condemn  themselves.  And  such, 
it  is  believed,  is  the  case  w^lth  Dr.  Pressly,  and  many 
others,  in  the  matter  of  Psalmody.  The  Doctor  main- 
tains, that  only  the  songs  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms 
should  be  used  in  the  worship  of  God;  and  yet  I  appre- 
hend he  does  not  use  these;  and  thus  he  condemns  him- 
4Belf.  On  page  14,  he  says, — "The  principle  for  which  I 
contend  is,  that  'it  is  the  will  of  God  that  the  sacred  songs 
^contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  be  sung  in  his  worship, 
both  public  and  private,  to  the  end  of  the  world;'  and  that 
we  have  no  authority  to  use  the  productions  of  uninspi- 
red men."  Now  we  think  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  show, 
that  the  Doctor's  practice  contradicts  his  principle;  and 
hence,  if  his  principle  is  correct,  he  is  living  in  disobe- 
dience to  the  will  of  God;  and  using  a  Psalmody  for 
which  he  says  he  has  no  authority. 

It  is  well  known,  that  the  Psalms  used  by  Dr.  Press- 
ly, in  the  worship  of  God,  are  those  called  the  "Psalms 
of  Rouse.''  Now  the  question  is  this,  are  these  the 
Psalms  of  inspiration?  are  they  the  Psalms  that  consti- 
tute a  part  of  the  Word  of  God?  If  they  are  not,  then 
the  Doctor  is  chargeable  with  all  that  we  have  alleged. 


16 


xMORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


And  I  apprehend  it  will  not  be  difficult  to  show,  that 
the  Psalms  of  Rouse  are  not  at  all  the  Psalms  of  inspi- 
ration. I  solicit  then,  the  readers  close  attention,  and  the 
exercise  of  his  patience;  while  with  care  and  at  some 
length,  we  investigate  this  matter. 

We  shall  begin  then,  with  the  first  Psalm  of  Rouse. 
And  we  find  that  Rouse  commences  his  Book  of  Psalms 
with  a  falsehood:  and  this  is  sufficient  proof,  that  they 
are  not  inspired.    He  says: — 

"That  man  hath  perfect  blessedness, 
who  walketh  not  astray/^ 

Now  Rouse  himself  in  another  of  his  Psalms  says 
this  is  not  true.    His  words  are: — 

••The  troubles  that  afflict  the  just, 
in  number  many  be/'' 

But  when  they  are  afflicted  with  many  troubles  they 
have  not  perfect  blessedness.  A  Psalm  then,  that 
teaches  what  is  false,  cannot  be  inspired.  It  must  be 
*'human  composure."  Dr.  Presslyuses  this  Psalm;  and 
hence  he  uses  a  Psalm  for  which  he  says  he  has  no  au- 
thority; and  also  sings  praise  to  the  God  of  Truth,  with 
nothing  less  than  a  falsehood  upon  his  lips!  But  even 
were  we  to  admit,  that  the  good  man  has  'perfect  blessed- 
ness, yet  this  first  Psalm  of  Rouse  would  not  be  the  first 
Psalm  of  inspiration.  The  Psahnsof  inspiration  have  in 
them,  just  what  the  Spirit  of  God  designed  should  be  in 
them;  no  more,  and  no  less.  If  Rouse's  first  Psalm  has  in 
it  just  what  is  in  the  first  inspired  Psalm,  neither  more 
nor  less,  tlien  it  is  a  copy  of  that  Psalm,  and  in  substance 
they  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  But  if  Rouse's  Psalm 
has  either  more  or  less  than  the  inspired  Psalm,  then  it 
is  not  a  copy, — they  are  not  one  and  the  same  thing  in 
any  respect.  The  one  is  the  inspired  Psalm,  and  the 
other  is  something  else.    It  may  be  very  like  the  inspired 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


17 


Psalm,  but  still  it  is  not  it.  It  either  has  something,  or 
wants  something  that  prevents  it  from  being  the  inspired 
Psalm.  Now  we  know  from  the  first  Psalm,  that  the 
Spirit  did  not  design  to  have  anything  in  it  oh  out  perfect 
blessedness;  but  Rouse's  first  Psalm  has,  and  this  is  con- 
trary to  the  design  of  the  Spirit;  and  therefore  it  cannot 
be  inspired.  The  Spirit  of  God  designed  that  the  Psalm 
should  be  one  way,  and  Rouse  has  it  another  way — 
Rouse's  way  is  contrary  to  what  the  Spirit  intended  it 
should  be;  and  can  it  then,  be  anything  less  than  impious 
folly,  to  say,  that  this  Psalm  of  Rouse  is  the  Psalm  of 
inspiration?    Again;  Rouse  says: — 

*'Who  walketh  not  astray^^ — 

But  the  Psalm  says  nothing  about  walking  astray, 
There  is  nothing  in  the  Hebrew,  nor  in  the  prose  trans- 
lation that  corresponds  to  the  word  astray.  If  the  Spirit 
of  God  had  designed  to  use  the  word  astray  no  doubt  He 
would  have  used  it,  as  He  has  done  in  the  58th  Psalm, 
3d  verse.  Hence  then,  its  being  in  the  Psalm  is  contra- 
ry to  the  design  of  the  Spirit,  and  the  Psalm  that  has  it, 
is  not  the  Psalm  of  inspiration.  Rouse  says; — 
*'He  shall  be  like  a  tree  tliat  grows^^ — 

But  the  Psalm  does  not  speak  about  a  tree  that  grows; 
this  also  is  contrary  to  the  design  of  the  Spirit;  and  hence 
it  cannot  be  inspired.    Rouse  says: — 
**A11  he  doth  shall  prosper  loelV — 

But  the  Psalm  does  not  say  so;  Rouse  does  not  agree 
with  the  Psalm;  hence  his  is  not  inspired.  The  Psahu 
says,  ''The  ungodly  shall  not  stand  in  the  judgment,  nor 
sinners  in  the  congregation  of  the  righteous."  But  Rouse 
says,  that  the  wicked  shall  not  even  ''appear"  among  the 
righteous.  This  too  is  contrary  to  the  design  of  the 
Spirit;  and  the  Psalm  that  has  it^is  none  of  His.  Rouse 
asks  the  question,  "For  why]"  But  there  is  no  such 
2* 


18 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


question  in  the  Psalm  at  all.  The  Spirit  did  not  design 
to  have  any  such  question  in  the  first  Psalm;  and  the  one 
that  has  it,  cannot  be  the  one  which  was  given  by  his 
inspiration.  Now  any  one  can  see,  that  this  first  song 
of  Rouse,  is  not  the  first  song  contained  in  the  book  of 
Psalms.  And  when  Dr.  Pressly  sings  it,  he  does  not 
sing  the  first  of  those  songs.  And  therefore  he  acts  con- 
trary to  his  own  principle, — disobeys  what  he  believes  to 
be  the  will  of  God, — and  uses,  in  His  praise,  a  Psalm, 
for  which  he  says  he  has  no  authority. 

We  have  seen  then,  that  Rouse's  first  Psalm,  is  not  the 
first  Psalm  of  inspiration;  it  is  only  like  it;  and  the  claims 
of  his  second  are  no  better.  He  says,  *'Why  do  the  people 
mind  vain  tJiingsV^  But  this  does  not  convey  the  idea 
contained  in  the  Psalm  at  all.  The  Psalm  says,  **Why 
do  the  people  imagine  a  vain  thing?  One  specific  thing; 
and  then  goes  onto  explain  what  that  one  thing  is.  And 
it  is  the  vain  design  of  preventing  the  establishment  of 
the  Messiah's  Kingdom.  But  according  to  Rouse  it 
would  be.  Why  do  the  people  mind  the  vain  trifles  and 
follies  of  the  world?  The  Spirit  did  not  design  to  have 
such  a  thing  in  the  second  Psalm;  and  a  P^alm  that  has  it 
is  not  the  Psalm  of  inspiration.  Rouse  says,  **Princes 
are  combined  to  plot  against  the  Lord.'*  But  the  Psalm 
does  not  say  so.  It  says,  they  take  counsel  together,  not 
to  j)lot^  but  against  the  Lord.  Rouse  says,  **The  Lord 
shall  scorn  them  all;'^  but  this  is  not  in  the  inspired 
Psalm.    Rouse  says: — 

"Yet,  notwithstanding  I  have  him 

to  be  my  King  appointed; 
And  o^er  Zion,  my  holy  hill, 
I  have  him  King  anointed/^ 
Just  compare  this  with  what  the  Psalms  says: — **Yet 
have  I  set  ray  King  upon  my  holy  hill  of  Zion."  The 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


19 


Psalm  speaks  about  a  King;  but  Rouse  speaks  about 
a  7iim,    This  pronoun  hiniy  has  no  antecedent — it  does 
not  stand  for  any  noun — it  represents  nothing,  nor  no- 
body! nor  does  it  at  all  convey  the  meaning  of  the  Psalm. 
God  the  Father  is  represented  as  speaking;  and  He  says, 
— Notwithstanding  the  opposition  of  the  wicked,  I  have 
set  or  anointed  my  King  upon  my  holy  hill  of  Zion. — 
But  Rouse  says      have  appointed  liim,^^ — Who? — and, 
**I  have   anointed   liimP^ — Why  this  verse  of  Rouse 
is  scarcely  like  that  of  the  Psalm  at  all;  it  is  not  even  a 
good  "Imitation/*    And  Dr,  Pressly  could  very  easily 
compose  another  verse  just  as  much  inspired  as  it  is — 
and  if  the  Doctor's  own,  would  be  humar.  composure, 
so  also  is  this — and  if  singing  his  own  would  be  "offer- 
ing strange  fire  before  tbe  Lord,"  he  is  no  less  guilty 
when  he  sings  this  strange  composition  of  Rouse;  be- 
cause he  is  not  singing  what  was  given  by  the  Spirit 
of  inspiration.    Rouse  has  sure  decree;  but  the  Psalm 
says  nothing  about  a  sure  decree.    Rouse — "Thou  art 
my  only  son;"  but  the  Psalm  does  not  speak  of  an  only 
Son,    And^when  the  Apostle  quotes  this  text,  Acts,  1^^; 
33,  he  does  not  say  only  son;  nor  do  I  know  that  Christ 
is  so  called  throughout  the  whole  Bible.    He  is  called 
only  begotten  Son,  but  this   is  a  very  different  thing 
from  only  son.    God  has  many  sons;  yet  He  has  but  one 
only  begotten  Son,  which  signifies,  a  son  posssessing  the 
same  divine  nature  equally  with  himself.    But  any  one 
can  see,  that  Rouse's  Psalm  is  different  from  the  inspi- 
red Psalm,  and  hence  his  cannot  be  inspired.  The 
Psalm  says,  "Thou  shalt  break  them  with  a  rod  of  iron." 
But  Rouse  leaves  this  out,  and  says,  "Thou  shalt  break 
them  as  with  a  weighty  rod  of  iron;  but  does  not  say 
with  what.    Rouse  says,  "break  them  «///"  but  not  so 
the  Psalm.    Rouse  says,  "like  a  potter's  sherd;"  but  the 


20 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Psalm,  "potter's  vessel.'*  There  is  quite  a  difference 
between  a  vessel  and  a  fragment  of  one.  What  a  sub- 
lime idea  Rouse  presents!  The  idea  of  dashing  a  weigh  - 
ty iron  rod  against  a  piece  of  crokery-ware!  What  a 
striking  figure]  It  just  took  Rouse  to  do  it.  And  he 
carries  out  the  idea;  for  he  says,  "them  dash  in  pieces 
imaliy  Of  course,  when  the  apiece  is  dashed  in  pieces 
with  the  weighty  iron  rod,  xkiQ  pieces  will  be  small!  But 
there  is  no  such  small  affair  in  the  Psalm  of  inspiration. 
It  is  altogetlier  original  with  Rouse.  And  this  too  is 
what  Dr.  Pressly  sings  in  the  worship  of  God.  He 
must  surely  then,  acquire  great  credit  to  himself,  by  de- 
claiming against  the  use  of  human  composition!  Might 
it  not  be  profitable  for  the  Doctor,  to  call  his  attention 
to  that  passage  of  inspired  composition,  where  it  says, 
"Physician  heal  thyself 

We  cannot  pretend  to  examine  all  the  Psalms  of 
Rouse;  because  it  would  fill  many  volumes  to  point  out 
all  the  discrepancies  between  them  and  the  Psalms  of 
inspiration.  But  take  what  Psalm  we  may,  and  it  is 
found  to  be  different  from  the  inspired  Psalm — nothing 
but  a  paraphrase  or  imitation.  Rouse,  in  his  paraphrase 
of  the  5th  Psalm,  says,  "Hear  ray  loud  cry,"  but  this  is 
no  part  of  the  inspired  Psalm.  Rouse  says,  '''Early  will 
I  direct  my  prayer — early  shalt  thou  hear  my  voice.'* 
But  the  Psalm  has  "In  the  morning,"  and  does  not  say 
whether  it  will  be  early  or  late.  Rouse  "I  will  expect 
an  answer;"  but  this  is  not  in  the  Psalm  at  all.  And  if 
Rouse  was  not  inspired,  how  can  this  be  inspired?  Yet 
the  very  people  who  sing  this,  condemn  others  for  sing- 
ing human  composure!  Rouse  says,  He  destroys  all  liars; 
but  the  Psalm  says  He  shall  destroy  them.  Rouse  says 
"The  bloody  and  deceitful  man 
Abhorred  is  by  theeJ^ 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


21 


But  the  Psalm  says,  the  Lord  will  abhor  him.  Rouse, 
''I  will  worship  towards  thy  holy  'placed  That  may  be 
toward  heaven.  But  the  Psalm  has,  ^'Toward  thy  holy 
temple."  This  is  what  the  Spirit  of  God  designed: — 
**holy  place''  is  contrary  to  His  design;  and  hence  it  is 
not  inspired.  Rouse  says,  *'Cast  them  out  for  their  sins;*' 
but  the  Psalm  says,  J?^  their  sins;"  a  very  different  idea. 
The  Psalm  says,  ''Let  them  ever  shout  for  joy."  But 
Rouse  says,  "Let  them  still  make  shouting  noise."  He 
does  not  say  whether  for  joy,  or  for  sorrow,  or  for  an- 
ger, or  just  for  the  sake  of  noise  itself!  It  is  indeed,  a 
curious  precept;  and  some  people  it  would  suit  very 
welh  but  then  it  is  no  precept  of  inspiration. 

Rouse  in  his  6th  Psalm  asks,  ''How  long  stay  wilt  thou 
make."  But  the  inspired  Psalm  does  not  say  anything 
about  staying.    Rouse  says:— 

"And  who  is  he  that  will  to  thee 

give  praises  lying  in  the  grave." 

What  is  it,  that  Rouse  has  lying  in  the  grave]  Does 
lying  agree  with  jpraises  or  who,  or  thee  or  thati  There 
is  not  this  difficulty  in  the  inspired  Psalm.  It  says,  "In 
the  grave  who  shall  give  thee  thanks."  But  Rouse  has 
another  paraphrase  of  this  Psalm;  and  this  passage  he 
has  thus:-^ 

''Of  those  that  in  the  grave  do  lie, 
who  shall  give  thanks  to  thee?'^ 

This  question  is  very  different  from  that  of  the  Psalm. 
The  question  in  the  Psalm  is  applicable,  both  to  the 
dead,  and  those  who  shall  die.  But  Rouse  asks  a  ques- 
tion applicable  only  to  those  already  dead.  His  idea  is 
entirely  differrnt  from  that  of  the  Psalm.  Rouse  says, 
*'God  hath  graciously  received  my  prayer;"  but  the 
Psalm  says,  '^The  Lord  will  receive  my  prayer;"  and  no 
gracimsly  to  it.    Rouse,  "Nor  on  me  lay  thy  chastening 


22 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


hand;*'  but  the  Psalm  has  nothing  about  cliastening  hand. 
Rouse,  ^'Lord  spare  me;"  which  is  not  in  the  Psalm  at 
all.    Rouse,    Because  thou  hnowest  my  bones  much  vex- 
ed are."    Neither  is  this  any  part  of  the  inspired  Psalm. 
Yet  Dr.  Pressly  teaches  his  people  that  they  sing  no- 
thing but  inspired  composition!    Rouse  has,  ^'Vexing 
grief;"  which  the  Psalm  has  not.    Rouse  says: — 
^^JJ  hen  I  to  him  my  jyrai/er  ma'ke 
the  Lord  will  it  receive.''' 
This  too  is  the  inspired  composition  of  Rouse.  Here 
he  says,  the  Lord  icill  receive  my  prayer;  in  his  other 
version,  he  says,  the  Lord  hath  received  it.    Those  who 
sing  nothing  but  inspired  composition  will  have  both 
these  inspired  of  course.    Rouse  says: — 
''When  I  did  mourn  and  cry" — 
This  also,  is  entirely  by  his  own  inspiration.  Dr. 
Pressly  sings  these  paraphrases  of  Rouse;  and  proclaims 
to  the  world  that  he  sings  the  ^'Sacred  Songs  contained 
in  the  book  of  Psalms." 

Look  next  at  Rouse's  10th  Psalm.    He  says: — 

^'ATlien  times  so  troublous  are."' — 
But  the  inspired  Psalm  says  nothing  about  the  degree 
of  trouble.    Rouse  says: — 

'•Let  them  be  taken  sure.*'' 
Ts  sure,  here,  an  adjective,  or  an  adverb?  Dr.  Pressly 
who  explains  these  Psalms  can  surely  tell.  Rouse,  ''The 
wicked  talks  with  great  hoast'ingy  This  is  mure  of 
Rouse's  inspiration.  "And  in  the  counsels  of  his  heart." 
The  Psalm  has  nothing  in  it  about  the  counsels  of  the 
heart.  Rouse,  "Thy  judgments  are  removed  out  of  his 
sight."  But  the  Psalm  does  not  say  they  are  moved  at 
all.  It  says,  "they  are  far  above  out  of  his  sight,"  with- 
out being  moved.    Rouse,  "He  puffeth  with  despite;" 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


23 


but  the  Psalm  has  nothing  about  puffing  with  despite. 
j  .**His  mouth  is  filled  abundantly;"  but  this  is  Rouse's  su- 
perabundant inspiration.  The  Psalm  says,  "He  sitteth 
in  the  lurking  places  but  Rouse's  inpsiration  falls  short, 
and  he  leaves  out  ^'lurking  places."  Psalm,  **In  the  se- 
cret places,  doth  he  murder  the  innocent."  Here  also, 
Rouse  in  his  inspired  wisdom  omits,  ^'secret  places." 
Rouse,  "Against  the  poor  that  pass  him  by."  The  Psalm 
says  nothing  about  the  poor  passing  by.  Rouse  speaks 
of  his  cruel  eyes;  but  this  is  not  in  the  Psalm.  The  Psalm 
speaks  of  a  lion's  den;  but  Rouse  speaks  of  man's  den! 
Rouse  has  a  7nultitttde  of  poor,  but  the  Psalm  has  not. 
Rouse  says,  "lift  up  thine  hand  on  Mgh,''^  but  the  Psalm 
does  not.  Neither  is,  "meek  afflicted  ones,"  in  the 
Psalm.    Rouse  says: — 

"Why  is  it  that  the  wicked  man 
thus  doth  the  Lord  despise?" 

But  there  is  no  such  question  in  the  Psalm.  The 
word  thus  changes  the  sense  entirely. 

"Thou  hast  it  seen:  for  their  mischief 
and  spite  thou  wilt  repay." 

This  does  not  give  quite  the  sense  of  the  Psalm  at  all; 
for  the  Psalm  teaches  that  God,  at  all  times,  and  in  all 
cases,  beholds  mischief  and  spite  in  order  that  He  may 
requite  it.  But  Rouse  conceals  this  important  truth,  and 
represents  God's  retributive  justice  as  exercised  only  in 
this  one  specific  case.  He  does  this  by  saying,  ^Hheir 
mischief,"  etc.  And  also.  Rouse  leaves  out  the  impor- 
tant thought  of  the]  Lord  requiting  mischief  and  spite 
with  his  own  hand.  Rouse's,  indeed,  is  a  very  poor  im- 
itation of  the  Psalm. 

"The  arm  break  of  the  wicked  man, 
and  of  the  evil  one:" 

"The  evil  one,"  is  generally  used  to  designate  the 


24 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Devil;  and  the  Psalm  I  think,  does  not  ask  for  the  break- 
ing of  the  Devil's  arm.  Rouse  speaks  of  the  sore  oppres- 
sed; but  the  Psalm  does  not.  Rouse  teaches,  that,  *'man 
of  the  earth,''  signifies  perishahle  man;  but  the  Psalm 
does  not  teach  this.  And  more  probably  it  means  the 
mere  man  of  the  v^orld — the  earthly  minded  man.  My 
conjectures  however,  are  useless;  for  Dr.  Pressly  sings 
it;  and  he  says  he  sings  nothing  but  inspired  songs;  and 
inspiration  must  be  true. 

Let  us  take  next  Rouse's  paraphrase  of  the  18th  Psalm ; 
and  we  shall  find  it  as  unlike  the  original  as  any  we  have 
yet  examined.  There  are  in  it  not  less  than  fifty  alter- 
ations, and  all  of  necessity  differing  from  the  Psalm  of 
inspiration.  At  the  beginning.  Rouse  leaves  out  of  his 
paraphrase  quite  a  long  verse  which  is  part  of  the  Psalm, 
It  is  this: — **To  the  chief  musician.  A  Psalm  of  David, 
the  servant  of  the  Lord,  who  spake  unto  the  Lord  the 
words  of  this  song,  in  the  day  that  the  Lord  delivered 
him  from  the  hand  of  all  his  enemies,  and  from  the  hand 
of  Saul;  and  he  said," — Now  this  is  a  part  of  the  Psalm  in 
the  Hebrew  Bible.  And  Dr.  Pressly  says,  the  titles  are 
inspired.  Why  then  does  he  exclude  this  portion  of 
the  inspired  Psalms  from  his  system  of  psalmody?  It 
cannot  be  because  it  is  not  suitable;  for  it  is  more  suita- 
ble than  some  that  he  does  sing:  such  as: — 
^'Moab's  my  washing-pot;  my  shoe 
ril  over  Edom  throw.'' 

On  what  ground  Dr.  Pressly  can  justify  himself,  in  re- 
fusing to  sing  the  1st  verse  of  the  18th  Psalm,  I  know  not, 
unless  it  is,  that  he  does  not  consider  it  inspired.  And 
at  this  conclusion  he  arrives,  I  presume,  because  it  con- 
stitutes no  part  of  the  Psalms  of  Rouse.  Indeed,  consis 
tency  requires  him,  to  deny  its  inspiration;  because  he 
says  he  uses  the  inspired  Psalms;  and  this  verse  is  not  in 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


25 


his  Psalms  at  all.  But  if  the  Psalms  used  by  Dr.  Pressly, 
are  those  of  inspiration,  then  the  Psalms  which  constitute 
a  part  of  the  Bible  are  not;  for  they  are  two  things  en- 
tirely different. 

The  Psalm  says,  ''My  cry  came  before  him;"  but  Rouse 
leaves  this  out  also.  Rouse  says,  '*The  earth  as  affrigh- 
ted,'* which  is  not  in  the  Psalm.  The  Psalm  says,  "The 
foundations  of  the  hills  were  shaken, this  too  is  omitted 
by  Rouse.  And  he  says,  ''Coals  were  turned  into  Jiame;^* 
but  the  Psalm  says  no  such  thing. 

"He  also  "bowed  down  the  heavens, 
and  thence  he  did  descend.'' 

How  false  and  foolish!  He  represents  Him,  as  bow- 
ing down  the  heavens,  and  then  coming  down  from  the 
heavens!  Rouse  says,  Thickest  clouds  w eve  undev  his 
feet;"  but  the  Psalm  says,  "Darkness  was  under  his  feet.'* 
By  comparing  the  two,  the  reader  can  see  that  the  fol- 
lowing sayings  of  Rouse  are  not  in  the  Psalm.  He  did 
fly  on  a  cherub — swift  wings — his  flight  was  from  on  high 
— thickest  clouds  of  the  airy  firmament — brightness  of 
light  before  his  eye — his  thick  clouds  passed  away — hail- 
stones and  coals  of  fire  did  jiy — the  Lord  God  thunder- 
ed in  His  ire — and  the  Highest  gave  his  voice  there — he 
sent  abroad  his  arrows — he  shot  out  his  lightnings — vast 
foundations  of  the  world.  The  ideas  conveyed  by  this 
language  are  all  from  Rouse.  He  says; — 
"At  thy  rebuke  discovered  were, 
and  at  thy  nostrils'  blast." 

It  should  be,  "Discovered  were,  O  Lord,  at  the  blast 
of  the  breath  of  thy  nostrils."  Rouse  says,  "He  took 
me  from  helow;^^  but  this  is  not  in  the  Psalm.  He  says, 
"Waters,  which  would  me  overflow;'^  this  too,  is  his  own 
inspiration. 

3 


26 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


•'Because  he  saw  that  they  for  me 
too  strong  were,  and  too  great/' 

But  the  Psahn  does  not  say  that  he  ^az^?  any  such  thing. 
Rouse  saw  it;  and  now  Dr.  Pressly  sees^  that  it  is  inspi- 
red!— 

'•He  to  a  pkce  where  liberiy 

and  room  was,  hath  me  brought/' 

This  is  not  what  the  Spirit  of  inspiration  has  said;  and 
how  then,  can  it  be  inspired? 

'•Sincere  before  him  was  my  heart.'' 

There  is  no  such  thing  in  the  Psalm  at  alL    And: — 
"  WcitclifuUy  I  kept  myself:*' 

Is  very  much  like  it.  "Cleanness  of  my  hands  ajp- 
pearing  in  Jds  eye:'''' — this  is  not  what  is  in  the  Psalm. 
The  inspired  Psalm  says;  **With  the  merciful  thou  wilt 
show  thyself  merciful,''  etc.  The  verbs  are  in  the  future 
tense,  ''thou  icilt;'^  but  Rouse  has  them  all  in  the  pres- 
ent, thus: — 

"Thou  gracious  to  the  gracious  art, 

to  upright  men  upright; 
Pure  to  the  pure;  froward  thou  kyth'st 

unto  the  froward  wight." 

It  is  obvious,  that  Rouse's  intention  was,  not  to  give  a 
literal  translation,  but  to  write  poetry;  and  his  wight  is 
invented  to  answer  this  purpose. 

He  would  indite;  and  forged  a  wight, 
To  fit  in  tight,  to  make  it  right. 

But  then,  it  must  be  an  inspired  wight;  and  when  Dr. 
Pressly  sings  it,  there  is  nothing  like  "offering  strange 
fire  before  the  Lord!"  Because  all  that  he  offers  in 
praise  he  has  for  it  a  Scripture  warrant, — "a  thus  saith 
the  Lord!" 

'•For  thou  wilt  the  afflicted  save,  • 
in  grief  ilw.t  low  do  JieJ^ 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


27 


Where  is  Dr.  Pressly's  warrant  for  singing  this]  For 
he  says,  "We  have  no  authority  to  use  the  productions 
of  uninspired  men," — 

"But  wilt  bring  down  the  countenance 
of  them  whose  looks  are  high.'^ 

What  authority  then,  has  he  for  using  this?  And  what 
authority  for  using  the  following: — 

"The  Lord  will  light  my  candle  so, 
that  it  shall  shine  full  bright  J' 
And  the  following  is  authorized  just  in  the  same  way: 
"By  thee  through  troops  of  men  I  break, 

and  them  discomfit  all; 
And  by  my  God  assisting  me, 
I  overleap  a  wall/' 

When  Dr.  Pressly  offers  this  in  praise,  he  is  surely 
careful  to  answer  the  question,  "Who  hath  required  this 
at  your  hands]"    Rouse  says: — 

"The  Lord  his  word  is  tried" — 

If  he  had  wished  to  write  sense,  might  he  not  as  well 
have  said.  The  Lord's  tvord,  it  is  tried!  And  if  Psalmon- 
ites  had  not  considered  his  nonsense  inspired,  would 
they  not  have  altered  it  long  ago] 

"For  who  is  God,  save  the  Lord]  or  who  is  a  rock, 
save  our  God]"    Compare  with  this  what  Rouse  says: — 
"Who  but  the  Lord  is  God?  but  he 
who  is  a  rock  and  stay?" 

Rouse  says, — Who  is  God,  but  he  who  is  a  rock  and 
stay]  But  the  Psalm  does  not  say  this  at  all.  The  Psalm 
says,  our  God  is  the  only  rock;  and  Rouse  leaves  this 
out  altogether.  And  yet  the  people  are  taught  by  Dr. 
Pressly  and  others,  that  these  are  the  Psalms  of  inspira- 
tion!— 

"Mine  hands  to  war  he  taught,  mine  arms 
brake  bows  of  steel  in  pieces." 


28 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


This  does  not  give  the  sense  of  the  Psalm;  for  it  rep- 
resents the  hands  being  so  taught,  that  the  arms  can 
break  a  bow  of  steel. 

^'And  ill  7717/  loay,  my  steps  though  hast 

enlarged  under  me, 
That  I  go  safely,  and  my  feet 

are  heptfrom  sliding  free  J' 

The  Psalmist  does  not  say,  that  his  feet  are  always 
kept  from  sliding;  this  is  not  the  idea  contained  in  the 
Psalm  at  all.    And  the  following  is  just  like  it: — 

^'Tliat  I  might  them  destroy  and  slay, 
ivho  did  against  me  i^iseJ^ 

And  Dr.  Pressly  could  write  composition  much  more 
inspired  than  the  following;  because  he  could  write 
much  nearer  to  the  truth: — 

^'They  cried  out,  but  there  was  none 
that  would  or  could  them  save/^ 
This  is  a  most  notorious  falsehood;  for  their  wicked 
accomplices  would  have  saved  them,  but  they  could  not; 
and  the  Lord  could  have  saved  them,  but  He  would  not. 
And  this  is  the  declaration  of  the  inspired  Psalm.  "They 
cried,  but  there  was  none  to  save  them;  even  unto  the 
Lord,  but  he  answered  them  not."  And  yet,  although 
Dr.  Pressly  and  other  Psalmonites  employ  palpable 
falsehoods  in  singing  the  praise  of  God,  they  neverthe- 
less teach  their  people,  that  the  Psalmody  used  is  in- 
spired! It  may  well  be  questioned  whether  Papists 
ever  practised  a  more  impious  fraud. 

^'Then  I  did  beat  them  small  as  dust 

before  the  wind  tliat  flies-, 
And  I  did  cast  them  out,  like  dirt 
upon  the  street  tliat  lies.'' 

This  may  be  said  to  be  very  like  the  inspired  Psalm, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


29 


And  so  it  is;  but  then  it  is  not  the  same.  E,ouse  intend- 
ed, not  to  translate,  but  to  make  poetry,  and  hence: — 

His  human  wisdom  hard  he  plies, 
Anon  come  forth  the  words,  that  fixes; 
And  then  to  these  he  adds,  that  lies; 
And  thus  his  rhyme  together  ties. 

But  who,  except  a  Psalmonite,  would  ever  suppose  it 
was  an  inspired  rhyme? — 

*'Thou  mad^st  me  free  from  people's  strife — 

The  plain  meaning  of  this  is,  that  people  are  accus- 
tomed to  have  strife  among  themselves;  but  I  have 
nothing  to  do  with  it — I  have  been  freed  from  all  inter- 
ference. If  we  had  not  the  inspired  Psalm  to  guide  us, 
we  would  not  get  the  correct  meaning  from  Rouse. 
And  thus  it  is  in  a  vast  multitude  of  cases,  we  could  not 
get  the  true  meaning  from  Rouse's  Psalm;  but  we  get 
it  from  the  inspired  Psalm.  And  thus  the  meaning  of 
the  inspired  Psalm  is  given  to  that  of  Rouse,  though  his 
language  does  not  convey  it  at  all.  And  this  is  one  rea- 
son why  Rouse's  Psalms  have  been  considered  inspired. 
We  gather  the  meaning  from  the  inspired  Psalm,  and 
then  we  read  Rouse's  Psalm  with  this  meaning,  no 
matter  what  may  be  contained  in  his  language.  But  if 
our  meaning  was  taken  from  Rouse's  own  language,  we 
would  have  a  very  different  affair  from  what  is  contained 
in  the  book  of  Psalms, 

*And  heathen^s  head  to  be'' — 

This  does  not  give  the  meaning  of  the  Psalm;  for 
"heathen's  head,"  is  the  same  as  head  of  heathen,  which 
signifies,  head  of  some  heathens]  not  the  heathen  as  a 
whole. 

*  At  hearing  they  shall  me  obey, 
to  me  they  shall  submit:^' 
This  is  what  Rouse  has  instead  of  the  following — "As 
3* 


30 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


soon  as  they  hear  of  me,  they  shall  obey  me:  the  straiigeis 
shall  submit  themselves  unto  me.'*  He  omits  the  last 
half  of  the  verse  altogether.  And  yet  w^e  are  told  that 
his  is  the  inspired  Psalm.  But  if  his  is  the  inspired 
Psalm,  then  David's  is  not.  And  the  matter  is  so  man- 
ifest that  there  is  no  room  for  controversy. 

''Strangers /or /ear  shall  fade  away, 
wJio  in  close  places  sit.'' 

This  is  not  in  the  Psalm  at  all.    True,  there  is  some- 
thing like  it,  but  the,  like  it^  is  not  the  inspired  Psalm. 
"And  to  thy  name,  0  Lord,  I  will 
sing  praises  in  a  song  J' 

As  this  is  not  part  of  the  inspired  Psalm,  it  is  very 
likely  Rouse  purposed  to  sing  praise  in  the  use  of  one 
of  his  own  songs. 

Surely  it  ought  not  to  be  pretended,  that  this  para- 
phrase of  Rouse  is  the  inspired  Psalm.  There  is  so 
much  taken  from  it,  and  so  much  added  to  it,  that  it  can- 
not be  the  same.  It  may  be  said,  that  the  changes  made 
are  small,  and  therefore  it  is  the  same  Psalm  still.  But 
no:  the  changes  have  made  it  what  it  was  not.  Suppose 
you  had  obtained  a  fine  horse,  and  you  would  take  off 
his  head;  and  then  cause  him  to  grow  all  over  with  feath- 
ers; w^ould  he  be  the  same  you  received?  Yes  he  would 
all  but; — all  but  what]  All  but  the  absence  of  the  head, 
and  the  presence  of  the  feathers,  and  the  want  of  life. 
And  these  changes  make  him  to  be,  not  the  one  you  ob- 
tained. That  one  had  a  head,  but  this  one  has  none: 
that  one  had  no  feathers,  but  this  one  has:  that  one  was 
living,  but  this  one  is  dead.  Before  you  have  the  same, 
you  must  put  on  the  head,  take  away  the  feathers,  and 
give  him  life.  And  thus  it  is  with  Rouse's  paraphrase 
of  the  18th  Psalm:  he  has  taken  away  the  head;  he  has 
put  on  the  feathers;  and  he  has  killed  it!    And  before 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


31 


it  is  the  same  Psalm  that  came  from  heaven,  there  must 
be  put  in,  what  he  left  out;  and  taken  out,  what  he  put 
in;  that  thus  it  may  have  the  living  beauty,  and  energy  of 
inspiration!  Were  you  to  receive  a  quantity  of  wine, 
and  take  the  alcohol  out  of  it,  and  then  pour  milk  into  it, 
it  could  not  be  the  same  you  received;  surely  it  would 
be  a  very  different  article.  And  so,  any  one,  who  im- 
partially examines  Rouse's  18th  Psalm,  cannot  but  see, 
that  it  is  not  the  Psalm  of  inspiration.  It  is  not  a  whit 
more  inspired  than  Dr.  Pressly's  work  on  Psalmody;  for 
a  good  deal  of  truth  is  found  in  them  both,  whatever 
else  they  may  contain. 

I  have  compared  Rouse's  22d  Psalm  with  that  of  in- 
spiration, and  have  noted  in  it  more  than  thirty  variations 
from  the  original.  And  hence,  it  and  the  inspired  Psalm 
are  two  things  very  different  from  each  other.  Any 
man,  by  comparing  them,  can  easily  see,  that  Rouse's 
paraphrase  of  the  22d,  is  no  more  inspired,  than  his 
paraphrase  of  the  18th.  Indeed  I  have  examined  a  great 
many,  and  I  cannot  find  one  of  Rouse's,  which  agrees 
with  the  Psalm  of  inspiration.  Even  the  shortest  Psalm, 
the  117th,  has  in  it  a  discrepancy,  for  every  line  it  con- 
tains. 

We  have  said,  that  inasmuch  as  Rouse's  Psalms  have 
in  them  a  multitude  of  words  and  phrases  not  found  in 
the  inspired  Psalms,  therefore  his  and  those  cannot  be 
one  and  the  same, — his  having  them,  cannot  be  those 
that  have  them  not.  This  multitude  of  supj^lementary 
words  and  phrases  entirely  destroys  their  claim  to  in- 
spiration. But  it  may  be  replied,  that  on  this  principle 
the  prose  translation  is  not  inspired,  for  it  also  has  a 
good  many  supplementary  words.  But  there  is  a  very 
great  difference  between  Rouse's  supplementary  words 
and  those  of  the  prose;  because  in  the  one  case  they  con- 


32 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


vey  only  the  ideas  contained  in  the  original,  but  in  the 
other  they  convey  more.  The  supplementary  words  of 
the  prose  do  not  convey  ideas  additional  to  those  of  in^ 
spiration;  but  the  supplementary  words  of  Rouse  do. 
In  the  one  they  convey  the  truth,  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
designed  to  teach  in  that  place;  but  in  the  other  they 
convey  more  than  this:  and  hence  they  constitute  no 
part  of  the  inspired  Psalm.  The  Psalm  that  has  them  is 
not  in  accordance  with  the  design  of  the  Spirit— it  is  not 
the  one  given  by  inspiration;  and  therefore  it  cannot  be 
inspired.  And  the  numerous  omissions  found  in  Rouse's 
Psalms,  is  another  thing  that  destroys  their  claim  to 
inspiration.  They  leave  out  a  good  deal  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  designed  should  be  in  the  book  of  Psalms: 
hence,  if  we  had  no  Psalms  but  those  of  Rouse,  we 
would  not  have  the  book  of  Psalms  at  all. 

We  shall  continue  then,  to  examine  a  few  more  of 
Rouse's  Psalms.  And  they  are  not  selected  as  the  worst 
specimens.  Let  us  look  at  his  72d.  We  find  he  has 
left  out  a  part  of  the  first  verse,  and  the  whole  of  the 
last  verse.  And  how  then,  can  it  be  pretended,  that  it 
is  the  Psalm  given  by  inspiration?  And  he  speaks  of 
lofty  mountains;  but  not  so  the  Psalm:  and  says  he  shall 
break  in  pieces  those  that  oppressed  tliem;  but  the 
Psalm  does  not.  The  Psalm  says,  ^'He  shall  come  down 
like  rain,  and  as  showers  that  water  the  earth;''  but 
Rouse  says,  ^'He  shall  drop!^^  How  ridiculous  the  idea, 
either  uf  Solomon,  or  of  the  Redeemer  dropping  upon 
the  earth!  The  beauty  of  the  figure  is  entirely  lost,  and 
almost  the  sense  too,  just  by  the  change  of  a  single 
word.  The  Psalm  says,  *'The  just  shall  flourish  in  his 
days:"  but  Rouse  thinks  this  is  not  enough,  and  in  his 
inspired  wisdom  adds,  "And  prosper  in  his  reign." — 
Rouse  says,  *'He  shall  abundant  peace  maintain;"  but 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


33 


the  Psalm  does  not  say  so  at  all.  Rouse  says,  **They 
that  dwell  in  the  wilderness  must  how  down  before  him 
but  this  is  not  in  the  Psalm.  Rouse  says,  **A11  the 
mighty  Kings  on  earth  shall  fall  before  him;'*  but  the 
Psalm  says,  ^'All  Kings,"  whether  they  be  mighty  Kings, 
or  i^etty  Kings.  Neither  does  it  say  anything  about 
those  on  the  earth;  nor  about  the  nations  of  the  loorld; 
nor  about  the  needy  calling  to  him;  nor  about  him  that 
hath,  no  help  of  man  at  all.  Of  these  thoughts  Rouse 
is  the  sole  author.  The  Psalm  says,  "Their  blood  shall 
be  precious  in  his  sight;  but  with  Rouse  this  is  not 
enough;  he  has  it,  right  precious  and  dear.  The  Psalm 
says,  '* There  shall  be  an  handful  of  corn  in  the  earth, 
and  the  fruit  thereof  shall  shake;'*  but  Rouse  says,  "The 
handful  of  corn  shall  shake!"  The  Psalm  says,  "Shake 
like  Lehanon;^^  but  Rouse  says,  "Shake  like  trees,^^ — 
How  perfectly  ridiculous  Rouse  makes  this  sublime  pas- 
sage. It  is  a  remarkable  prophecy  of  the  Redeemer's 
Kingdom — its  small  beginning,  and  subsequent  greatness 
and  glory.  This  is  set  forth  in  figurative  language.  A 
mere  handful  of  corn — sown  in  the  most  barren  soil,  on 
the  top  of  the  mountains;  yet  this  handful  yields,  and 
prospers,  and  increases,  until  the  fruit  or  product  there- 
of appears,  in  all  the  majesty  and  grandeur  of  the 
waving  mountain  forest!  But  Rouse  says  the  ^^handful 
shall  shake."  Will  it  be  while  falling  on  the  ground  in 
sowing]  or  after  it  is  in  the  ground'?  Aye  too,  and  the 
handful  will  shake  like  trees!  O  such  inspiration!  But 
in  Dr,  Pressly's  estimation  it  is  sublime  when  compared 
with  "human  composure!"  And  in  singing  it  he  is  very 
careful,  not  to  "offer  strange  fire  before  the  Lord!"  The 
Psalm  says,  "They  of  the  city  shall  flourish;"  but  Rouse 
says,  "The  city  shall  flourish,  and  the  citizens  shall 
abound  in  number  like  the  grass."    The  Psalm  says, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


**God  doeth  wondrous  things;"  and  Rouse  adds,  "In  glo- 
ry that  excel.''  Thus  we  see,  that  Rouse's  inspiration 
goes  beyond  that  of  David!  And  this  accounts  for  Dr. 
Pressly's  fondness  for  his  Psalms;  he  being  so  very 
zealous  for  inspired  composition.  The  Psalm  says,  **The 
prayers  of  David,  the  son  of  Jesse,  are  ended;"  but 
Rouse  has  inspiratfon  enough  in  his  without  this. 

Take  next  Rouse's  paraphrase  of  the  78th  Psalm. 
The  Psalm  has,  **Give  ear  to  my  law;"  but  Rouse  has, 
**Give  ear  to  my  law,"  and  '^Attend  to  my  law."  Here 
again  his  inspiration  goes  beyond  that  of  the  Psalm.  He 
talks  of  or diB proceeding  from  the  mouth;  but  the  Psalm 
does  not.  He  says,  **Hear  attentively)^^  but  this  is  not 
in  the  Psalm. 

*'Them  to  the  generation 
to  come  declare  will  we." 
This  also,  is  from  Rouse.    And  so  is  the  following: — 
*'The  praises  of  the  Lord  our  God, 

and  his  almighty  strength, 
The  wondrous  works  that  he  hath  done, 
we  will  show  forth  at  lengthl" 
There  is  positively  no  such  proposition  in  the  Psalm; 
though  I  know  Dr.  Pressly's  argumentative  skill,  could 
very  easily  make  out,  that  there  is.    The  reader  may 
compare  the  following  also,  with  what  is  in  the  Psalm: — 

*'His  testimony  and  his  law 

in  Israel  he  did  place, 
And  charged  our  fathers  it  to  show 

to  their  succeeding  race." 

Could  any  one  tell  what  the  pronoun  it  stands  for? — 
Perhaps  the  meaning  is,  it  testimony  and  law;  if  so,  it 
is  surely  elegant.  The  Psalm  says,  "That  the  genera- 
tion to  come  might  know  them;"  but  this  is  not  enough 
for  Rouse:  he  has,  "Know  and  learn  them  wellT  For 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


35 


**Works  of  God/'  Rouse  has,  ^'Ms  mighty  worksj*^  For 
"precepts/'  he  has,  ''all  precepts'^  For,  "turned  back," 
he  has,  ^'faintly  turned  hack.'^^ 

"Yet  sinning  more,  in  desert  they 
pj^ovoke  the  highest  One/' 
The  reader  may  compare  this  with  the  language  of 
the  Psalm: — "And  they  sinned  yet  more  against  him,  by 
provoking  the  Most  High  in  the  wilderness." 

"For  in  their  heart  they  tempted  God, 

and  speaking  with  mistrust, 
They  greedily  did  meat  require 
to  satisfy  their  lust/' 
Will  Dr.  Pressly  be  so  condescending  as  to  show  that 
this  verse  was  given  by  the  Spirit  of  God?    And  will  he 
have  the  goodness  to  show,  that  the  following  also  is  in- 
spired:— 

"Against  the  Lord  himself  they  spake; 

and  murmuring,  said  thus^ 
A  table  in  the  wilderness 
can  God  prepare  for  usf^ 
The  Psalm  says,  "The  waters  gushed  out  and  the 
streams  overflowed;"    Rouse  says,  ''streams  and  waters 
great  came  thence;  and  leaves  out,  "The  streams  over- 
flowed."   Rouse  says: — 

"And  by  his  power  he  let  out 
the  Southern  wind  to  go." 
But  the  Psalm  says,  "By  his  power  he  brought  in  the 
South  wind."  Thus  the  one  flatly  contradicts  the  other. 
Rouse  must  be  right;  for  Dr.  Pressly  says,  he  sings 
nothing  but  an  inspired  Psalmody;  and  the  Psalm  that 
contradicts  his  inspired  Psalm  must  be  wrong.  And 
Rouse  says,  "He  let  out  the  southern  wind  to  go^^ — to 
go  where? — perhaps  to  go  and  inspire  Rouse.  The 
Psalm  says,  "Feathered  fowls  as  the  sand  of  the  sea;" 
but  Rouse  says,  "Like  as  the  sand  which  lieth  the  shore 


36 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


dlong:^^  Does  he  mean  the  shore  of  a  river,  or  of  a  lake,  or 
of  the  sea;  Rouse  says,  showers  of  flesh  fell  down  amidst 
their  camp;  but  we  have  no  account  that  it  came  in 
sliowers.  It  is  not  said  in  the  Psalm,  that  they  did  eat 
ahundantly]  nor,  that  he  gave  them  their  desire  and  will; 
nor  does  the  Psalm  say  a  word  about  them  estranging 
their  heart  and  desire  from  their  lust;  nor  yet  about 
meat,  "which  they  did  so  require.*'  The  Psalm  says, 
"The  wrath  of  God  smote  dov^n  the  chosen  men  of  Is- 
rael; but  Rouse  says,  '''Death  overwhelmed  them."  The 
Psalm  does  not  say,  "Though  he  had  wrought  great 
v^onders;''  nor  does  it  say,  "He  consumed  and  wasted 
their  days. 

"And  by  his  wrath  their  wretched  years 
away  in  trouble  past.^^ 
This  may  be  true,  but  then  it  is  no  part  of  the  inspired 
Psalm;  nor  this: — "Then  they  did,  to  seek  him  show  de- 
sire!^ Nor  does  the  Psalm  say,  "  high  almighty  God;'* 
nor,  "spake  but  feignedly;"  nor,  "God  of  truth;"  nor, 
"False  tongues;"  nor  this,  "For  though  their  words 
were  good;"  nor,  "Fading  flesh."  The  Psalm  says: — 
"For  he  remembered  that  they  were  but  flesh."  But 
Rouse  says: — 

"For  that  they  were  but  fading  flesh 
to  mind  they  did  recall." 

The  Psalm  says,  "It  was  God  who  remembered  they 
were  but  flesh;"  but  Rouse  says,  "It  was  the  people  who 
remembered  it."  Will  Dr.  Pressly  have  the  goodness 
to  publish  and  make  known,  which  is  right? 
"A  wind  that  passeth  soon  away.^' 
This  is  not  in  the  Psalm,  thouo^h  there  is  somethincrlike 
it.    But  there  is  nothing  like: 

"With  their  rebelliousness." 
The  Psalm  says,  "They  limited  the  Holy  One  of  Is- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


37 


rael/'  This  peculiar  and  important  phrase,  *^Holy  One 
of  Israel,"  Rouse  leaves  out,  and  consequently  he  does 
not  give  the  sense.    He  has  it  jumbled  together  thus: — 

"And  limits  set  upon 
Him,  who  in  the  midst  of  Israel  is 
the  only  holy  one/^ 

The  Psalm  says,  "they  remembered  not  his  liand-^'' 
but  Rouse  says,  "they  remembered  not  his  power — 
Hand  may  signify  power;  but  then,  which  is  the  lan- 
guage of  inspiration?  The  Psalm  says,  "He  delivered 
them  from  the  enemy;  but  Rouse  says,  "He  delivered 
them  from  the  hand  of  their  Jieixe  enQvay y  The  Psalm 
does  not  say,  "that  he  wrought  great  signs  openly  in 
Egypt  land;'*'  nor,  "that  his  hand  had  brought  miracles  to 
pass,^^  Rouse  says,  Every  where  he  turned  lakes  and 
rivers  into  blood/'  If  so,  then  Lake  Superior  and  the 
Mississippi  were  turned  into  blood.  The  Psalm  does 
not  say,  "that  he  turned  lakes  into  blood"  any  where;  for 
neither  of  the  words  used  signifies  a  lake.  Rouse  says: 
"So  that  no  man  nor  beast  could  drink 
of  standing  lake  or  flood.'^ 

But  this  is  no  part  of  the  inspired  Psalm.    The  Psalm 
does  not  say,  that,  "He  brought  among  them  swarms  of 
flies;'*  nor  that  they  sore  annoyed  them.    How  did  Rouse 
find  out,  that  there  were  divers  kinds  of  filthy  frogs? 
And  who  told  him  that  hot  thunderbolts  wasted  their 
flocks?    The  Psalm  does  not  say,  "He  brought  them 
to  borders  of  his  sanctuary;"  nor,  "purchased  for  them.'' 
The  Psalm  says,  "He  cast  out  the  heathen  also  before 
them."    But  just  look  what  Rouse  has  instead  of  this! — 
"The  nations  of  Canaan, 
by  his  almighty  hand, 
Before  their  face  he  did  expel 
out  of  their  native  land.^' 
4 


38  MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 

And  yet  Dr.  Pressly  says,  that  Rouse's  version,  **is  a 
translation  of  the  songs  of  Inspiration!'*  But  any  one 
can  see,  that  if  this  is  inspired  composition,  then  there 
is  a  vast  quantity  of  inspired  composition  extant;  for  all 
that  is  in  accordance  with  the  vsrord  of  God  is  inspired. 

*'And  to  observe  his  testimonies 
did  not  incline  their  will/' 
The  only  claim  to  inspiration  that  this  has,  is,  that  it 
agrees  with  the  word  of  God, 

* 'Aside  they  turned,  like  a  bow 
that  shoots  deceitfully/' 
The  claims  of  this,  are  precisely  the  same.    And  the 
following  is  no  better: — 

^^So  sore  Ms  wrath  infiamed  ivas 
against  his  heritage.'' 
And  the  following  also,  is  something  like  what  is  in 
the  Psalm; — 

"The  mighty  tribes  of  Ephraim 

he  would  in  no  wise  choose — 
But  he  did  choose  Jehudah's  tribe 

to  be  the  rest  above.^' 

Rouse  says,  ''He  brought  him  to  feed,  his  people  Ja- 
coVs  seed;^^  but  there  is  no  such  thing  in  the  Psalm.  And 
he  says,  *'He  fed,  and  governed  them  wisely represent- 
ing David  as  sustaining  to  Israel  the  character  of  both  a 
shepherd  and  a  King:  this  is  explaning  the  Psalm;  for 
the  language  of  the  Psalm  is  figurative,  and  speaks  of 
him  only  in  the  character  of  a  shepherd.  And  yet  Dr. 
Pressly  is  violent  against  singing  an  explanation  in- 
stead of  the  Psalm  itself.  But  indeed,  we  have  abun- 
dant evidence,  that  he  is  violent  against  his  own  prac- 
tice. 

We  take  next  Rouse's  paraphrase  of  the  80th  Psalm. 
And  we  find  it  to  be,  not  that  Psalm,  though  it  is  like  it. 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


39 


Rouse  leaves  out  the  whole  of  the  first  verse,  as  it  is  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible — Dr,  Pressly  says,  the  titles  are  inspired; 
hence  this  verse  is  a  part  of  the  inspired  Psalm.  And 
the  Psalm,  which  is  without  it,  cannot  be  that  Psalm, 
any  more  than  a  part  of  an  apple  can  be  that  apple. — 
But  Rouse  has  an  abundance  of  interpolations,  to  more 
than  compensate  for  all  his  omissions.    ''Stir  up  thy 
strength  and  mightf^ — is  one — "O  Lord  our  God,*' — is 
another — "  Upon  us  vouchsafe,*' — is  another — "O  Lord 
of  Hosts,  Almighty  God,'' — is  another — "How  long 
shall  thy  wrath  he  kindled,^'' — is  another — "The  prayer 
made," — is  another;  and  the  Psalm  having  these  interpo- 
lations can  no  more  be  the  Psalm,  that  has  them  not, 
than  a  horse  with  feathers  can  be  a  horse  that  has  none. 
And  these  interpolations  are  essential  to  Rouse's  Psalm; 
for  take  them  out  and  he  would  have  no  Psalm.  And 
hence,  that  which  makes  Rouse's  Psalm  to  be  a  Psalm, 
is  not  in  the  inspired  Psalm  at  all.    The  inspired  Psalm 
is  a  Psalm  without  them;  but  Rouse's  is  no  Psalm  with- 
out them;  therefore  it  is  impossible  for  his  and  it  to  be 
one  and  the  same.    You  might  just  as  well  say,  that  wa- 
ter and  whiskey  are  the  same.    Water  is  water  without 
alcohol;  hence  whiskey  has  in  it,  that  which  prevents  it 
from  being  water.    And  so  Rouse's  Psalms  have  in  them, 
that  which  prevents  them  from  being  the  Psalms  of  inspi- 
ration.   And  as  taking  the  alcohol  out  of  whiskey  anni- 
hilates it;  so  taking  the  interpolations  out  of  Rouse's 
Psalms  annihilates  them.     And  thus  we  see,  that  their 
very  existence  depends  upon  what  is  not  in  the  inspired 
Psalms  at  all.    And  hence,  that  which  gives  them  life  is 
not  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  it  is  from  man;  their  vitality 
is  not  divine  but  human;  for  just  take  out  of  them  what 
is  human,  and  they  cease  to  be  Psalms  altogether.  And 
yet  these  Psalms  are  used,  by  the  very  people,  who  cry 


40 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


out  against  the  use  of  human  composition!  Alas!  for 
poor  fallen  humanity! 

But  let  us  continue  the  examination  of  Rouse's  SOth 
Psalm.    He  says: — 

''Thou  tears  of  sorrow  giv'st  to  them 
instead  of  bread  to  eat/^ 
Now  take  the  human  out  of  this,  and  see  how  much 
will  remain — '*Thou  tears  them  bread" — And  thus  we 
see,  that  the  very  existence  of  Rouse's  Psalms  depends 
upon  what  is  human, 

*'Thou  niakest  us  a  strife  unto 
our  neighbors    ^  ^ 
This  is  Rouse's  paraphrase  without  the  human.  And 
we  see  the  human  is  essential  to  it,  in  order  to  have  it  in 
verse. 

''Our  enemies  among  themselves 
^    ^        do  laugh    "  J' 

This  is  more  without  the  human;  and  we  see  that  the 
human  is  absolutely  indispensable.  And  the  following 
proves  the  same  thing: — 

"A  vine  from  Egypt  brought  thou  hast, 

^  ^  ^  ^  , 

J 

And  thou  the  heathen  out  did'st  cast, 

We  thus  see  the  kind  of  a  Psalm  Rouse  would  have 

when  the  human  composition  is  taken  out.    The  truth 

is,  it  would  be  no  Psalm  at  all.    Here  is  another  sample: 

"Before  it  thou    ^    ^    room  did'st  make 
^        ^        #        *        #  . 

Thou  causedst  it  deep  root  to  take, 
and  it  did  fill  the  land/' 

"The  mountains  veiled  were  with  its  shade 
*        *        *        #        *  . 

Like  goodly  cedars  were  the  boughs, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


41 


"  *    a  *       *       ^    to  the  sea 

her  boughs  she  did  out  send; 
^      ^      ^      ^      ^   unto  the  flood 

her  branches  did  extend. 
**Why  hast  thou  then        ^    broken  down 

^  ^       her  hedge    ^  : 

So  that  all  passengers  do  pluck, 

•X-      -H-      ^    her    -5^    ^  ? 
"The  boar,  *      4f      4f  ^ 

doth  waste  it  ; 
The  wild  beast  of  the  field    ^  ^ 

devours  it  ^*       ^  . 

"0  God  of  hosts,  we  thee  beseech, 

return  thou       ^       ^  ; 
Look  down  from  heaven    ^    ^    ,  behold, 

and  visit     ^        this  vine; 
a  ^  ^  vineyard,  which  thine  ^*  ^  right  hand 

has  planted  ^  , 

And  *     branch,  which  for  thyself 

thou  hast  made  to  be  strong. 
Burnt  up  it  is  with    ^"    *  fire, 

it    *        is  cut  down: 
They      *       -5^       4:-  ^ 

•3€-  -X-  -X-  -Jf 

"  *  *  let  thy  hand  be  *  *  upon 
the  man  of  thy  right  hand. 


The  Son  of  man,  whom  for  thyself 

thou  madest  strong    *    *    *  ^ 
*'So    ^    *        we  will  not  go  back, 

*    from  thee  *  : 

*       *  quicken  us,  and  we 

upon  thy  name  will  call. 
"Turn  us  again,  Lord  God  of  hosts, 

:?f  *  4f  * 

^    make  thy  countenance  to  shine, 
and    *        we  shall  be  safe.^^ 
Now  if  Dr.  Pressly  still  maintains,  that  the  human 
composition,  is  not  essential  to  Rouse's  Psalms,  let  him, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


some  day,  try  his  congregation  in  singing  the  above,  out 
of  which,  part  of  the  human  has  been  taken.  If  they 
can  sing  it,  to  edification,  without  the  human,  then  I  will 
admit  that  it  is  not  essential  to  Rouse's  Psalms.  But  if 
they  cannot  do  this,  then  they  must  admit,  that  the  very 
existence  of  Rouse's  Psalms  depends  upon  human  com- 
position. 

And  if  the  Doctor  and  his  people,  wish  to  try  their 
musical  abilities,  upon  a  shorter  Psalm,  they  may  take 
the  100th  of  Rouse.  Without  the  human  composition 
it  reads  thus; — 

''All      *****  ^ 

*  *    unto  the  Lord       *       *       *  ^ 
Him  serve  with  mirth,       *       *       *  ; 
Come    *        before  him       *       *  . 
Know  that  the  Lord  is  God       *       *  : 

*  **       *       *       he  did  us  make: 
We  are  his       *****  ^ 

sheep       *       *       *  . 

*  enter    *    his  gates  with  praise, 

*  *      *      *    his  courts    *     *  ; 

Praise,    *    *    ,  and  bless  his  name    *    *  , 
******* 

For    *    *    ?  the  Lord    *    *    is  good. 

His  mercy  is  forever    *    *   *  . 

His  truth    ******  ^ 

*  *   shall  from  age  to  age  endure/' 

Now  we  see,  there  is  a  large  portion  of  this  Psalm 
entirely  human.  And  Rouse  has  proved  this  himself, 
by  giving  another  version,  in  which  he  has  omitted  near- 
ly all  that  is  omitted  in  the  above.  Let  the  reader 
compare  the  two: — 

"0  all  ye  lands,  unto  the  Lord 

make  ye  a  joyful  noise. 
Serve  God  with  gladness,  him  before 
come  with  a  singing  voice. 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


43 


Know  ye  the  Lord  that  he  is  God: 

not  we,  but  he  us  made; 
We  are  his  people,  and  the  sheep 
within  his  pasture  feed/^ 
Now  if  all  the  matter  contained  in  Rouse's  first  ver- 
sion is  inspired,  and  he  has  left  a  good  deal  of  it  out 
of  his  second,  then  his  second  cannot  be  inspired. 
And  if  his  second  has  in  it  all  that  ought  to  be  in  it, 
then  his  first  has  a  great  deal  to  much,  and  it  cannot  be 
inspired.  One  of  them  must  be  wrong;  because  they  dif- 
fer so  much.  But  in  the  estimation  of  Psalmonites, 
they  are  both  inspired  alike;  and  they  never  forbear  ro 
sing  either,  because  it  is  human  composition.  The  one 
that  has  the  greater  amount  of  human  composition  in  it, 
they  sing  more  frequently  than  the  other.  But  take  the 
human  out  of  them  both,  and  they  will  have  no  100th 
Psalm,  in  verse;  because  it  is  proved  that  it  is  human 
composure,  which  keeps  in  existence  the  Psalms  of 
Rouse — take  it  out,  and  they  are  gone. 

Leaving  the  human  out  of  Rouse's  84th  Psalm,  it 
commences  thus: — 

It  ^         *         *         #  « 

0  Lord  of  hosts,    *       *  ! 
*       tabernacles       *       *  * 
how  pleasant       *  * 
Is  it  not  obvious,  that  taking  out  the  human  puts  an 
end  to  it]    And  we  repeat  it,  that  what  is  essential  to 
the  existence  of  Rouse's  Psalms,  is  not  in  the  Psalms  of 
Inspiration  at  all: — 

*'My  thirsty  soul  longs  veliemently— 
An  house  lolierein  to  resf^ — • 
These  are  some  more  of  the  human  essentials.  Rouse 
says,   **The  swallow  hath  purchased   a  nest  for  her- 
self;" but  in  this  country,  swallows  do  not  buy  their 
nests — *'Wher6  she  safe  her  young  ones  forth  may 


44 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


bring'* — Who,  but  Rouse,  would  ever  have  thought  of 
a  swallow  bringing  forthi  But  then,  it  is  the  swallow 
that  buys  its  nest.  What  an  advantage  Rouse  had,  in 
that  he  wrote  inspired  composition;  for  otherwise  his 
literary  productions  would  surely  have  been  lost  long 
ere  now! — "In  whose  heart  are  thy  ways."  This  too, 
is  from  his  inspired  pen — 

''Who  passing  through  Baca's  vale, 
therein  do  dig  up  wells/' 

This  is  from  the  same  author;  it  has  the  true  charac- 
teristics. And  when  they  dug  "up  the  wells,''  they 
would  have  them  out  on  the  ground — they  could  exam- 
ine them — put  in  new  bottoms,  etc.  and  then  put  them 
down  again — And  who  has  not  heard  a  congregation 
boggle  at  Baca]  Because  the  line  has  a  syllable  too 
little.    Might  he  not  as  well  have  said: — 

Who  passing  on  through  Baca's  vale? 

And  surely  it  would  have  been  altered  long  ago,  if 
Psalmonites  had  not  considered  Rouse's  language  as 
the  identical  language  of  inspiration?  The  feeling 
among  them  has  been — Who  would  dare  to  lay  his  sac- 
rilegious hand  upon  the  sacred  text]  And  this  is  the 
fraud,  and  foolish  notion,  propagated  and  cherished 
among  them  at  the  present  time. — "The  rain  that  falleth 
down,"  is  more  of  this  inspired  composition.  And, 
"Fills  the  pools  with  water;"  is  more— —"They  go  un- 
wearied.'*  Notwithstanding  Rouse's  inspiration,  1  do 
not  think  he  speaks  the  truth  here. — "They  go  still 
forward."  So  he  says. — "Before  the  Lord  at  length" — 
from  the  same  authority;  and,  "Thine  anointed  dear," — 
from  the  same.  Rouse  is  careful  to  add  at  the  close  of 
the  Psalm,  full  as  much  as  he  omitted  at  the  beginning. 
His  last  verse  is  like  his  first,  nearly  all  human: — 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


45 


"0       *       Lord  of  hosts, 

that  man  is  *  blest, 
Who,  *  *  *  *  , 
on  thee  *  doth  rest.^^ 
I  hope  the  reader  will  not  become  wearied;  as  it  is 
surely  very  important  to  expose  the  unfounded  preten- 
tions of  men,  who  declaim  so  much  against  human  com- 
position; who  indulge  so  much  self  complacency  on 
account  of  their  inspired  Psalmody;  and  who  practice 
such  deception  upon  their  people.  Let  us  examine, 
then,  another  of  their  inspired  songs;  the  102d.  Of  this 
Psalm  Rouse  has  two  versions;  and  both  are  very  dif- 
ferent from  the  Psalm  of  inspiration.  Neither  of  them 
is  a  translation  of  that  Psalm.  And  the  mere  English 
reader  can  easily  see  it  by  comparing  them  with  the 
prose  translation.  He  can  see  that  if  it  is  the  word  of 
God,  they  are  not.  How  could  they  both  be  a  transla- 
tion of  the  same  thing,  when  they  differ  from  each  other 
so  much?    The  one  says: — 

''The  pelican  of  wilderness 
The  owl  in  desert  I  do  watch:^' 
The  other  says: — 

''Like  pelican  in  wilderness 

forsaken  I  have  been 
I  like  an  owl  in  desert  am, 

that  nightly  there  doth  moan/' 
Dr.  Pressly  says,  that  both  these  are  a  translation  of 
the  inspired  song.  But  who,  except  a  Psalmonite, 
would  believe  him]  And  who  else  would  believe  him, 
were  he  to  say  that  either  of  them  is?  Of  this  Psalm 
also.  Rouse  has  entirely  omitted  the  first  verse  as  it  is 
in  the  Hebrew  Bible.  It  is  thus: — "A  prayer  of  the 
afflicted,  when  he  is  overwhelmed,  and  poureth  out  his 
complaint  before  the  Lord."  Now  this  portion  of  in- 
spiration is  not  in  Rouse's  Psalms  at  all.    And  there  is 


46 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


in  them  a  vast  quantity  of  matter  not  in  the  inspired 
Psalms  at  all.  Such  as — ^^Ihave  been  forsaken  like  pel- 
ican'^— "I  am  like  an  owl  that  nightly  there  doth  moan'^ 
— "Thy  wrath  and  indignation,  did  cause  this  grief  and 
jpain^^ — **Lift  me  up  on  high,  cast  me  down  again^^ — 
My  days  are  like  a  shade,  which  doth  pass'^ — am 
dried  like  the  grass'' — ^'Thy  remembrance,  shall  contin- 
ually  endure^'' — "For  thy  servants  take  pleasure  in  her 
rubbish;  for  her  sahe^  When  Rouse  leaves  out,  and 
puts  in,  so  much;  and  makes  his  Psalms  so  much  unlike 
those  of  inspiration,  how  can  Dr.  Pressly,  in  speaking  of 
them,  have  so  little  self  respect,  as  to  use  the  following 
language? — "This  version,  then,  the  reader  will  percieve, 
is  a  translation  of  the  songs  of  inspiration;  it  is  a  ren- 
dering of  the  word  of  God,  which  was  given  in  Hebrew 
poetry,  into  English  poetry."  Now  how  shall  we  ac- 
count for  it,  that  in  the  midst  of  an  enlightened  Christian 
community.  Dr.  Pressly  would  venture  to  publish  such 
a  declaration?  Can  it  be  that  he  is  so  imperfect  in 
knowledge,  as  to  the  character  of  Rouse's  Psalms;  or 
can  it  be,  that  he  is  so  imperfect  in  his  love  of  truth,  as 
to  make  the  assertion  while  he  knew  better?  And  is  it 
possible,  that  he  is  ignorant  of  the  character  of  the 
Psalms,  he  has  been  explaining  so  long?  And  yet  he 
says.  Rouse's  Psalms  "is  a  translation  of  the  songs  of 
inspiration — a  rendering  of  the  word  of  God  which  was 
given  in  Hebrew!"  Most  astonishing!  Will  Dr.  Press- 
ly tells  us  what  it  is  in  the  Hebrew,  of  which  the  follow- 
ing is  a  translation: — 

"When  Zion  hy  the  mighty  Lord 

'built  up  again  shall  he, 
In  glory  then,  and  majesty 

to  men  appear  shall  be.'' 
Any  English  reader  can  see,  that  if  this  is  a  translation 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


47 


of  the  Hebrew,  the  following  is  not: — "When  the  Lord 
shall  build  up  Zion,  he  shall  appear  in  his  glory."  And 
of  what  is  the  following  a  translation: — 

''Their  prayer  will  he  not  despise, 
hy  Mm  it  shall  he  heard  J' 

The  last  line  is  just  a  translation  of  nothing.  "He  hath 
cast  his  eye  downward,'* — "The  Lord,  from  his  glori- 
ous throne,  did  spy  the  earth/' — "Groanings  of  the 
mournful  prisoner — by  men  appointed  to  death,"— "That 
they  may  declare  the  Lord's  most  holy  name  in  Zion, 
and  in  Jerusalem,  publish  the  praises  of  the  same,  namCy^ 
— "In  troops  with  one  accoid," — "To  serve  the  highest 
Lord," — "My  force  he  hath  abated," — *'Thy  years  stay 
from  age  to  age," — "The  firm  foundations," — "Thou 
shalt  endure  for  evermore^  Any  one  that  examines 
can  see,  that  this  has  been  rendered  from  nothing  in  the 
Hebrew.  And  hence  it  must  be  a  translation  of  Hebrew 
nothings;  for  Dr.  Pressly  says,  that  Rouse's  version  is 
a  translation  of  the  Hebrew  into  English.  And  we 
find,  that  Hebrew  nothings,  when  translated  by  Rouse, 
amount  to  a  good  deal.  The  Doctor,  however,  can  still 
make  out,  that  Rouse's  Psalms  are  inspired,  for  the  He- 
brew nothings  will  be  inspired,  and  when  Rouse  trans- 
lates them  they  will  be  still  more  inspired;  so  that  the 
Doctor's  Psalmody  is  exceedingly  inspired! 

In  his  second  version  of  this  Psalm  we  find  a  vast 
multitude  of  these  translations. — "Let  my  cry  have  spee- 
dy access," — is  one.  "Consume  away," — is  another. — 
"My  bones  do  burn," — another.  "Wounded  very  sore," 
— another.  "My  heart  like  grass  doth  fade," — another. 
"I  am  grown  forgetful  to  take  my  daily  bread," — anoth- 
er. "By  reason  of  my  smart  within," — another.  "Voice 
of  my  most  grevious  groans," — another.  "My  flesh  con- 
sumed is," — another.  "My  skin,  all  parched,  doth  cleave 


48^ 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY* 


unto  my  bones/* — another.  "1  watcli  upon  the  top  of 
the  houses/* — "Sparrow-like,  companionless," — is  anoth- 
er. "I  am  made  a  scorn  all  day  long," — is  another. — 
"The  madmen  are  sworn  against  me," — is  another. — 
"The  men  that  arose  against  me," — is  another.  "I 
have  eaten  up  ashes,  as  if  they  had  been  bread  to  me," — 
another.  ''I  made  a  mixture  of  bitter  tears,  in  my  cup 
with  my  drink," — is  another.  It  is  strange  indeed,  that 
any  man  would  call  this  production  of  Rouse  a  transla- 
tion of  the  Hebrew!  The  following  verse  does  not  give 
any  thing  like  the  true  meaning:- — 

"Because  thy  wrath  was  not  appeasM, 
And  dreadful  indignation; 
Therefore  it  was  that  thou  me  raised, 
And  thou  again  did  cast  me  down.''' 

The  sense  in  the  Psalm  is  very  different  from  this.  It 
reads  thus: — "For  I  have  eaten  ashes  like  bread,  and  min- 
gled my  drink  with  weeping,  because  of  thine  indigna- 
tion and  thy  wrath!"  This  makes,  "indignation  and 
wrath,"  the  cause  of  having  eaten  ashes,  etc.  but  Rouse 
has  it  altogether  different. 

For  the  benefit  of  those  who  cannot  sing  human  com- 
posure in  the  worship  of  God,  it  may  be  well  to  publish 
the  remainder  of  this  Psalm  of  Rouse,  leaving  out  what 
is  human.  Dr.  Pressly  and  his  people  can  then  sing  it, 
without  "offering  strange  fire." 

"My  days  are  like  a  shade    *    *  , 
Which  doth  declining       *       *       *  ; 
And  I  am  withered       *       *       *  , 

*  *    like    *    the       *       *  grass. 

But  thou,  0  Lord,  shalt  still  endure, 
******** 

And  to  all  generations       *  * 

*  *    thy  remembrance       *       *  . 
Thou  shalt  arise,  and  mercy       *  * 

*  *       *       ^'ion       ^       *  ♦ 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Her  time  for  favor  which  was  set 

*  is    *        come       *       *  . 
Thy    *    take  pleasure  in  her  stones, 
Her        dust  to  them  is  dear. 

*  heathen  *  *  *  *  ^ 
^     thy     "  name  shall  fear, 

God  in  his  glory  shall  appear, 
When  Zion  he  builds     ^'^     ^'  , 
He  shall  regard     -x-     ^     4^  - 
^        the  needy^s  prayers: 
Th'    ^        prayer  he  will  not  scorn., 
^     ^     this  shall  be  on  record: 
And       ^  -       -  - 

Shall  praise  ^"  the  Lord. 

He  from  his  holy  place  looked  down, 
The  earth        viewed  from  heaven 
To  hear  the  prisoner's  groan, 
And  free  them  that  are  doomed  to  die: 

Zion      "*     Jerusalem  , 
His  name  and  praise    ^'     ^'  , 
When  people  and  the  Kingdoms  do 
Assemble        to    ^        the  Lord. 

My  strength  he  weakened  in  the  way, 
My  days  -  shortened: 

My  God,        ^    take  me  not  away 
In  mid-time  of  my  days,  I  said: 
Thy  years  throughout  all  ages  last. 
Of  old  thou  hast  established 
The  earth's  foundation    ^    ^  : 
Thy    ^'        hands  the  heavens    "  . 

They  perish  shall,  , 
But  thou  shalt  endure: 
As    *    "    thou  shalt  change  them  ^-  , 
And  they  shall  be  changed 

But  from  all  changes  thou  art  free, 
5 


50 


MORTOiN  ON  PSALMODY. 


Thy    *     *     years  do  last  for  aye, 
*     *     *     and  their  seed    *    *  , 
Established  shall  before  thee  stay/^ 

All  of  the  inspired  Psalm  that  Rouse  has  in  his,  is  in 
the  above;  and  we  see  the  kind  of  Psalm  it  is  when  the 
human  composition  is  left  out.  And  there  is  scarcely  a 
word  of  the  human  composition,  but  what  changes  the 
meaning;  or  conveys  ideas  additional  to  those  contained 
^n  the  inspired  Psalm.  Now  if  House's  Psalms  are  a 
translation  of  the  Hebrew,  there  h  a  great  deal  in  them 
which  must  be  a  translation  of  Hebrew  nothings.  And 
can  Dr.  Pressly  prove  that  the  Hebrew  nothings  are  in- 
spired] If  he  cannot,  then  we  may  very  well  doubt  the 
inspiration  of  them  when  they  are  translated  by  Rouse. 
Aud  besides,  the  Hebrew  nothings,  are  no  part  of  the 
inspired  Psalm;  hence^  a  Psalm,  made  up  in  part,  of 
them  translated,  cannot  be  that  Psalm.  And  this  is  the 
inspired  Psalmody  used  by  Dr.  Pressly;  a  Psalmody 
consisting  in  measure,  of  a  miserable  translation  of  He- 
brew nothings!  Well  may  he  publish  it;  that  he  is  free, 
from  the  sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu! 

Let  us  next  examine  Rouse's  145th  Psalm.  He  com- 
mences one  of  his  versions  thus:— 

"0  Lord  thou  art  my  God  and  King:'^ 

Now  I  defy  any  man,  to  point  out  any  thing  in  the 
Hebrew  of  which  this  is  a  translation.  And  Rouse 
shows  by  his  other  version,  that  they  are  not  both  a  trans- 
lation.   It  begins  thus:— 

'Til  thee  extol  my  God  0  King;'' 

Now  if  this  is  a  translation  of  the  Hebrew,  it  requires 
no  argument  to  show%  that  the  other  is  not.  Again; 
Rouse  says: — **Thee  will  I  magnify  and  praise;^'  but  this 
is  not  in  the  Psalm.  *'I  will  gladly  sing  unto  thy  holy 
name;'*  neither  is  this.    He  says: — ''Each  day  I  rise  I 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


51 


will  thee  bless;"  but  does  not  say  what  he  will  do  when 
from  sickness  he  is  unable  to  rise.  In  the  Psalm  it  is: — 
**Every  day  will  I  bless  thee/'  There  is  no  proviso 
made  about  rising,  ^'I  will  speak  of  thy  glorious  ^racc;'' 
neither  is  this  in  the  Psalm: 

^'Thy  wondrous  works  I  will  record. 
By  men  the  might  shall  he  extolled 
Of  all  thy  dreadful  acts,  0  Lord; 
And  I  thy  greatness  will  unfold.^'' 

If  this  was  found  in  Watts'  Psalms,  it  would  be  noth- 
ing but  human  composure.  And  the  following  would  be 
like  it: — 

*'And  shall  ^iwg praises  clieerfidJy^ 

'Whilst  the}^  thy  righteousness  relate 
And: — *'The  Lord '6>?^r  God  is  gracious;"  would  be  no 
better.  ^*But  unto  ivratli  and  anger  show;"  is  more  of 
the  same.  *'<jood  unto  all  men  is  the  Lord;"  is  also  hu- 
man, because  it  limits  the  goodness  of  the  Loi  d  to  men; 
but  the  Psalm  says,  *'The  Lord  is  good  to  alL"  "Thy 
saints,  O  Lord,  thy  name  shall  bless;"  is  also  human; 
because  it  is  not  what  is  in  the  Psalm. 

''That  so  men's  sons  his  deeds  may  know, 

His  Kin^jdom's  grace  tJiai  doth  exedP 

To  sing  this  from  Watts'  Psalms  would  just  be  "oubr- 
ing  strange  fire  before  the  Lord." 

''Thy  Kingdom  hath  none  end  at  all, 

It  dotlt  tlivoiKjlh  ages  all  remain 
To  those  singing  this,  from  Watts',  Dr.  Pressly  would 
say,  **Who  hath  required  this  at  your  hands."    And  he 
would  put  the  same  query,  if  the  following  was  sung 
from  Watts': — 

"The  eyes  of  all  things,  Lord  attend , 

And  on  thee  wait,  tliat  here  do  live; 

And  thou  in  season  due  dost  send 

Sufficient  food,  tliem  to  relieve* 


52 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Tea,  thou  thine  hand  dost  open  tvide 
And  every  tiling  dost  satisfy 
That  lives,  and  doth  on  earth  abide, 
Oftliy  great  liberality  J  ^ 

This,  in  Watts'  Psalms,  would  be  strange  fire;  but  Dr. 
Pressly  can  sing  it  from  Rouse,  with  the  "sanction  of  the 
divine  appointment!''  Is  it  not  marvellous,  to  see  the 
unfounded  pretentions,  put  forth  by  men,  on  this  sub- 
ject?  Dr.  Pressly  pretends,  that  he  has  "the  sanction  of 
the  divine  appointment"  for  the  use  of  the  following 
also: — 

^'God  will  iYidjust  desire  fulfil 
Of  such  as  do  him  fear  and  dread: 
Their  cr}^  regard  and  hear  he  will 
And  save  them,  in  tJie  time  of  need.. 
The  Lord  preserves  all,  more  and  less, 
That  hear  to  him  a  loving  heart: 
But  workers  all  of  wickedness 
Destroy  will  he,  and  clean  subvert 
Therefore  my  mouth  and  lips  Fll  frame 
To  speak  tJie  praises  of  the  Lord 
To  magnify  his  holy  name 
Forever  let  all  flesh  accord 

Dr.  Pressly  maintains,  that  all  this  is  inspired;  but  just 
let  the  reader  compare  the  last  verse  with  the  words  of 
inspiration: — 

"My  mouth  shall  speak  the  praise  of  the  Lord;  and 
let  all  flesh  bless  his  holy  name  for  ever  and  ever." 

It  will  be  observed,  that  all  I  have  written  in  italics,  in 
Rouse,  is  different  from  the  language  of  inspiration;  and 
all  has  the  effect  of  changing,  in  some  measure,  the 
meaning. 

Neither  is  it  possible,  to  sing  in  the  worship  of  God, 
Rouse's  common  metre  version  of  this  Psalm,  without 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


53 


being  guilty,  of  what  Dr.  Pressly  calls,  "offering  strange 
fire  before  the  Lord."    For  instance  the  following: — 
**I^11  speak  of  all  thy  miglity  works, 
wliich  loondrous  are  0  LordJ' 
And  the  following  is  not  in  the  inspired  Psalm;  and 
therefore  it  must  be  human  composure: — 

*'And  I,  thy  glory  to  advance 
thy  greatness  will  declare/^ 
And  they  who  sing  the  following  must  be  guilty  of  the 
sin  of  Nadab  and  Abihu: — 

"The  Lord  Jehovah  unto  all 

his  goodness  doth  declare 
And  over  all  his  other  works 
his  tender  mercies  are/^ 

The  Psalm  does  not  say,  "The  Lord  declares  his  good- 
ness to  all,"  but  that  he  is  actually  good  to  all.  It  is  not 
the  Psalm,  but  Rouse,  that  makes  God's  7nercies  to  be 
worke* 

"The  eyes  of  all  things  wait  on  thee, 
the  giver  of  all  good;^^ 

•  It  remained  for  Rouse  to  discover  that  all  things  had 
eyes.  Could  any  one  tell  what  the  eyes  of  a  "potter's 
sherd"  are  like]  I  mean  Dr.  Pressly's  inspired  potter's 
sherd!    Again  he  says: 

"Thine  hand  thou  open^st  IW rally 

and  of  thy  bounty  gives, 
Enough  to  satisfy  the  need 
of  every  thing  that  lives.^' 
The  Psalm  does  not  say  anything  about  opening  his 
hdiud  liberally;  nor  about  giving  of  his  hounty;  nor  about 
enough  to  satisfy  need;  it  is  all  human,  because  not  in  the 
inspired  Psalm.    And  how  Dr.  Pressly  can  sing  it,  hold- 
ing the  principles  he  does,  is  marvellously  strange. — 
Rouse  says  again: — 

5* 


54 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


*'My  mcutli  the  praises  of  the  Lord, 
to  piihlisli  cease  shall  never: — 

Ai]cl  this  is  not  in  the  Psalm  at  all.  And  again  he 
says: — 

"The  Lord  preserves  all  who  him  love, 
that  nought  ca.n  them  annoy: — 

Which  is  a  notorious  falsehood.  It  is  contrary  to  the 
whole  tenor  of  Scripture — "Many  are  the  afflictions  of 
the  righteous — In  this  world  ye  shall  have  tribulation." 
And  the  godly  are.  annoyed  with  sin  as  long  as  they  live. 
But  it  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  falsehood  with 
w^hich  Rouse  commences  his  book  of  Psalms.  Because: 
A  man  hath  perfect  blessedness 
when  nought  can  him  annoy: — 

But  a  Psalmody  teaching  such  doctrines  is  worse  than 
human.  And  if  disposed  to  deal  in  harsh  insinuations 
respecting  others,  we  might  use  the  language  of  Dr. 
Pressly  and  say:  ''Can  we  for  a  moment  entertain  the 
thought,"  that  w^e  are  authorized,  "to  come  before  the 
Lord  with  the  blind,  the  halt  and  the  lame?  Cursed  be 
the  deceiver,  which  hath  in  his  flock  a  male,  and  voweth 
and  sacrificeth  to  the  Lord  a  corrupt  thing." 

The  proof  then,  w^e  see,  is  superabundant,  to  show,  that 
Rouse's  Psalms,  are  not  the  Psalms  of  inspiration.  Be- 
cause his  interpolations  do  not  always  speak  the  truth; 
and  even  if  they  did,  they  constitute  no  part  of  the  inspi- 
red Psalms.  They  are  complete  without  them;  but  his 
would  not  be  complete  without  them.  Without  them 
his  would  be  no  Psalms  at  all.  The  inspired,  are  Psalms 
icitJiout  them;  but  Rouse's,  are  Psalms  only  iviiJi  them: 
therefore  they  cannot  be  the  same.  The  one,  are  the 
Psalms  of  the  Bible;  the  other  are  not  the  Psalms  of  the 
Bible;  and  therefore  Rouse's  Psalms  are  not  inspired; 
they  are  no  part  of  the  Word  of  God;  and  they  must  be 
human  composure. 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


55 


A  different  course  might  have  been  pursued  by  exam- 
ining the  whole  of  House's  Psalms,  and  pointing  out 
some  of  the  alterations  made  in  each.  It  was  thought, 
however,  that  it  would  answer  the  purpose  better,  to  take 
a  few  indiscriminately,  commencing  at  the  beginning, 
and  point  out  the  great  difference  there  is  between  them 
and  the  Psalms  of  inspiration.  And  the  result  of  the 
examination  of  these  few  may  be  quite  sufficient  to  sat- 
isfy the  impartial  reader,  that  the  Psalms  of  Rouse  are 
not  the  Psalms  which  constitute  a  part  of  the  Word  of 
God;  and  that  consequently  the  use  of  them,  is  not  the 
use  of  the  Psalms  of  inspiration. 

But  again:  of  some  Psalms,  Rouse  has  given  two  ver- 
sions; and  these  often  differ;  hence  they  cannot  both  be 
the  inspired  Psalm;  and  inspiration  is  claimed  for  them 
both  alike.  Look  at  his  versions  of  the  25th.  In  the 
one  it  is,  '*To  thee;"  in  the  other  it  is,  '*To  thee  O  Lord.'' 
Now  the  inspired  Psalm  cannot  be  both  these.  Again: 
in  tiie  one  it  is,  Lord  T  trust;"  in  the  other  it  is, 
my  God  I  trust."  Tiie  one,  *'Let  me  not  be  ashamed;" 
the  other,  "  M?/  God  let  me  not,"  etc.  The  one,  ''Let 
them  be  ashamed;"  the  other,  "O  Lord  let  them,"  etc. 
The  one,  "Show  thy  ways  Lord;"  the  other,  Lord 
show  me  thy  ways."  The  one,  ''Teach  me;"  the  other, 
"O  teach  tkou  me."  It  is  very  plain,  that  these  cannot 
both  be  the  Psalm  given  by  inspiration.  The  one,  "I 
wait;"  the  other,  "1  wait  exjyecting,'''  The  one,  "Thy 
tender  mercies;"  the  other  "Thy  mosi  tender."  The 
one,  "O  Lord  forget  my  sins;"  the  other,  "Let  my  sins 
be  forgotten;"  this  does  not  say  by  whom.  The  one, 
Great  goodness:"  the  other  "Goodness,"  The  one, 
"God  is  good  and  gracious;''''  the  other,  "G^d  is  good." 
The  one,  "He  therefore;"  the  other,  nothing.  The  one, 
"In  which  they  should  go;"  the  other,  0.    The  one,  "He 


56 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Will  guide  the  meek;"  the  other,  "The  meek  and  lowly ^ 
The  one,  **In  judgment;"  the  other,  *'In  judgment.'' 
The  one,  ''Alway;"  the  other,  0.  The  one,  "To  meek 
and  poor  afflicted  ones  he'll  clearly  teach  his  way;"  the 
other,  0.  The  one,  "Paths  of  the  Lord;"  the  other,  "Of 
the  Lord  our  God^  The  one,  "I  thee  entreat;"  the  other, 
"I  humhly  thee  intreat."  The  one,  "And  doth  him  serve;" 
the  other,  0.  The  one,  "And  still  observe;"  the  other,  0. 
The  one,  "And  his  posterity  shall  flourish  still;"  the  other, 
0.  It  surely  requires  no  argument  to  show,  that  these  can- 
not both  be  the  Psalm  given  by  inspiration.  It  is  given 
only  one  way,  and  is  different  from  both  these.  The  one, 
"Fear  Mm;''''  the  other,  "Fear  his  namey  The  one,  To- 
ward the  Lord;"  the  other,  "  Upon  the  Lord."  The  one, 
"Eyes;"  the  other,  "  Waiting  eyes."  Now  the  inspired 
Psalm  does  not  differ  from  itself;  it  is  not  two  things;  it 
is  only  one.  And  as  these  differ,  the  question  is,  which 
of  them  is  the  inspired  one?  No  doubt.  Dr.  Pressly^ 
when  he  is  explaining  them  to  the  people,  is  very  care- 
ful to  point  out  the  inspired  Psalm,  and  to  warn  them 
against  the  one  that  is  mere  human  composure;  lest  by 
singing  it,  they  might  be  guilty  of  "offering  strange  fire 
before  the  Lord." 

Let  us  next  compare  a  few  verses  of  Rouse's  para- 
phrases of  the  45th  Psalm.  And  in  one  thing  we  find 
they  are  both  alike,  neither  of  them  has  the  first  verse  of 
the  Psalm  of  inspiration.  And  then  in  the  one  it  is, 
"My  heart  brings  forth;"  in  the  other,  "My  heart  is  in- 
diting.In  the  one,  "Good  matter  in  a  song;^^  in  the 
other,  "A  goodly  thing."  The  one  has,  "I  speak  the 
things  that  I  have  made;"  the  other,  0.  The  one,  "xMy 
tongue  is  a  p%n;"  the  other,  "My  tongue  shall  be  as  quick 
as  a  pen."  The  one,  "Grace  in  thy  lips  doth  flow;"  the 
other.  "Store  of  grace  is  infused  into  thy  lips."  The 
one: — 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


57 


Appear  in  dreadful  majesty, 
and  in  thy  glory  bright/^ 
But  the  other  has  nothing  corresponding  to  this  call. 
In  the  one  there  are  two  calls,  one,  to  *^gird  on  the 
sword,"  and  another  to  ^'appear;"  but  in  the  other  there 
is  only  a  call  to  **gird  on  the  sword. The  one  has 
"Things  fearful;''  the  other,  ^'Things  great  and  terrible." 
It  may  be  said,  that  these  are  very  much  alike.  But 
then,  they  differ;  and  which  is  the  language  of  inspira- 
tion? If,  "Things  fearful,"  is  the  language  of  the  Spirits 
then,  ^'Things  great  and  terrible,"  is  not.  And  not  only 
does  the  language  differ,  but  the  ideas  conveyed  by  it 
are  different.  And  so  it  is,  in  every  other  case  of  disa- 
greement, however  small,  if  the  one  is  the  Psalm  of  in- 
spiration, then  the  other  is  not.  Again,  the  one  says, 
"Arrows  sharply  pierce;"  the  other,  ''Shall  pierce;"  and 
no  sharply  to  it.  The  one,  "And  undei'  thy  subjection;'' 
the  other,  "Whereby  into  subjection."  The  one,  ''Do 
bring;"  the  other,  "Shalt  bring,"  The  one,  "Royal 
seat;"  the  other,  "Throne  of  might."  The  one,  "Of 
myrrh  and  sweet  spices;"  the  other,  "Of  aloes,  myrrh 
and  casia."  The  one,  "Glorious  train;"  the  other,  "Wo- 
men honourable."  The  one,  "Waiting  stand;"  the  other 
"Were  at  hand."  The  one,  "The  queen;"  the  other, 
"Thy  fair  queen."  The  one,  "Forget;"  the  other,  "Must 
forget."  The  one,  thy  people;"  the  other,  "All  thy  kin- 
dred." The  one,  "Father's  house;"  the  other,  "Father's 
house  most  dear^  The  one,  "Thy  beauty  shall  be  vehe- 
mently desired;"  the  other,  "Thy  beauty  shall  be  de- 
lightful." The  one,  "With  a  gift;"  the  other,  "With 
gifts  and  offerings  great,"  The  one,  "The  daughter;" 
the  other,  "Behold,  the  daughter."  The  one,  "She  com- 
eth;"  the  other,  "She  shall  be  brought."    The  one,  "The 


58 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


virgins;"  the  other,  ''Her  fellow-virgins/'    The  one, 
*'Joy;'^  the  other,  ''Great  joy/*    The  one  has: — 
"Instead  of  these  thy  fathers  dear;'^ — 

And  the  other  has: — 

"And  in  thy  father's  stead/^ 

Thus  the  one  says,  "Thou  may  est  take  thy  children  in- 
stead of  thy  father;''^  and  the  other  says,  "Thou  mayest 
take  thy  children  instead  of  thy  dear  fathers;'^  and  which 
of  them  is  the  insj^ired  onel  The  correct  answer  is, 
neither.  Because  the  inspired  Psalm  does  not  say, 
"Thou  mayest  take,''  at  all.  It  just  says,  "Instead  of 
thy  fathers  shall  be  thy  children."  Were  we  to  exam- 
ine every  Psalm  of  which  Rouse  has  given  two  versions 
we  w^ould  find,  that  these  differ  very  considerably  from 
each  other.  But  the  insj)ired  Psalm  never  differs  from 
itself,  it  is  always  the  same.  These,  then,  that  differ 
from  each  other  cannot  both  be  a  translation  of  that 
Psalm.  And  which  of  them  is,  would  be  difficult  to  tell; 
because  the  one  has  just  as  good  a  claim  as  the  other. — 
The  next  time  Dr.  Pressly  calls  upon  his  congregation 
to  sing  from  House's  45th,  we  advise  him,  to  inform  the 
people,  which  of  the  paraphrases  is  the  inspired  Psalm, 
as  it  is  impossible  for  them  both  to  be  such.  And  in  re- 
lation to  the  one  he  selects  as  inspired,  let  him  not  de- 
ceive the  people  any  longer,  with  mere  sounds  of  ortho- 
doxy, but  honestly  i^ove,  that  it  is  really  the  Psalm  giv- 
en by  inspiration.  If  he  cannot  ^roz;^^  this,  then,  he  and 
his  people,  according  to  his  views,  are  guilty  of  the  "sin 
of  Nadab  and  Abihu;"  and  "offer  strange  fire  before  th# 
Lord,"  when  they  sing  Rouse's  45th  Psalm. 


CHAPTER  III. 


RousE^s  Psalms  a  Paraphrase — Psalmonites  Guilty  of  Ad- 
ding TO  THE  AYoRD  OF  GoD — Human  Composure. 


Were  we  to  examine  Rouse's  entire  Book  of  Psalms, 
we  should  find  the  same  indubitable  marks  of  imperfec- 
tion. As  in  the  few  already  examined,  we  should  find 
enough  to  prove,  that  they  are  not,  in  the  full  sense  of 
the  phrase,  the  production  of  the  Spirit  of  God — not  the 
Psalms  of  inspiration;  and  that  they  constitute  no  part  of 
the  Bible.  But  though  this  is  the  case,  yet  Neodists  can 
use  them;  because  they  do  not  believe  there  is  any  au- 
thority requiring  a  greater  degree  of  inspiration  in  their 
Psalmody,  than  in  their  sermons  and  their  prayers. — 
They  can  use  them,  though  they  do  not  receive  them  as 
the  songs  penned  by  inspiration,  inasmuch  as  they  are 
believed  to  teach,  (with  a  few  exceptions,)  whatis  agree- 
able to  the  Word  of  God.  And  this  is  all  that  can 
justly  be  claimed  for  these  Psalms;  that  in  the  form  of  a 
paraphrase,  they  generally  set  forth  truth  revealed  by 
inspiration.  But  at  the  same  time  it  is  surely  improper 
to  consider  this  paraphrase  as  the  Word  of  God.  A  par- 
aphrase of  the  Scriptures  has  never  been  taken  for  the 
Scriptures  themselves.  And  Rouse's  Psalms,  until  of 
late,  were  never  considered  as  any  thing  more  than  a 
paraphrase.  This  is  the  name  by  which  they  were  first 
known;  and  by  which  they  were  authorized  in  the 
Church  of  Scotland.  That  Church  did  not  even  call 
them  a  version:  because  a  version  may  mean  a  literal 


60 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


translation:  but  a  paraphrase  never  has  this  meaning. 
Hence  they  always  called  them  a  paraphrase:  showing 
that  they  did  not  consider  them  a  translation  of  the  Book 
of  Psalms.  And  these  two  terms  are  understood  to 
be  quite  different  in  meaning,  when  used  in  relation  to 
the  Scriptures.  A  translation  of  the  Scriptures  is  quite 
a  different  thing  from  ^, paraphrase.  And  it  is  important 
to  have  a  correct  idea  of  their  difference,  What,  then, 
is  meant  by  translating?  We  ought  to  have  some 
definite  meaning  attached  to  this.  Translate  means,  to 
transport,  to  transfer,  to  convey,  to  carry  over,  etc.  But 
it  always  retains  the  idea  of  transfer:  that  something  is 
conveyed  from  one  place  to  another.  Now,  when  a  man 
translates  from  Latin  into  English,  what  does  he  do?  He 
conveys  something  from  the  Latin  to  the  English;  and 
what  is  it]  Is  it  the  language,  or  is  it  the  ideas'?  It  must 
be  the  ideas  set  forth  in  the  Latin  that  he  conveys  to  the 
English:  because  if  he  gets  no  ideas  from  the  Latin,  he 
cannot  translate  at  all.  Give  a  man  who  does  not  un- 
derstand Latin,  these  words,  homo  est  mortalis,  and  tell 
him  to  translate  them  into  English:  and  he  cannot.  Why] 
because  they  give  him  nothing  to  convey  over  to  the 
English.  He  gets  from  the  words  no  ideas.  And  though 
he  has  the  words,  he  has  nothing  that  he  can  take  over 
and  put  in  the  English,  But  tell  a  man  who  under- 
stands Latin  to  translate  these  words,  and  he  can  do  it. 
Why]  Because  he  gets  from  them  something  that  he 
can  carry  over  to  the  English.  From  homo^  he  gets  the 
idea  of  man;  from  mortalisy  he  gets  the  idea  of  mortal; 
and  estf  couples  them  together.  These  ideas  then  he 
carries  over  to  the  English;  and  there,  they  are,  man  is 
mortal.  The  ideas  set  forth  in  the  Latin  language,  he 
translates,  or  carries  over  and  sets  them  fortli  in  the 
English  language.    To  translate,  then,  is  to  set  forth  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


61 


ideas  contained  in  one  language,  in  some  other  lan- 
guage. It  is  a  transfer  of  ideas;  not  a  transfer  of  lan- 
guage. A  translation,  then,  to  be  strictly  a  translation, 
must  set  forth  just  the  ideas  contained  in  the  original, 
no  more,  and  no  less.  This  is  a  literal  translation. 
But  the  ideas  of  the  original  may  be  set  forth  in  combi- 
nation with  a  great  many  other  ideas;  this  is  not  a  trans- 
lation; but  ^paraphrase.  It  aims  at  giving  the  sense 
without  a  literal  renderinof  of  the  orimnal.  There  is  no 
restriction  as  to  the  number  of  words  or  ideas;  few  or 
many  may  be  used  without  any  regard  to  the  number  in 
the  original.  And  so  also,  there  may  be  a  great  deal 
of  explanatory  matter  introduced,  not  contained  in  the 
original  at  alL  But  this  and  the  original  are  not  one 
and  the  same  thing,  only  in  different  languages.  The 
paraphi-ase  has  in  it  a  great  deal  which  is  not  in  the  ori- 
ginal. And  if  the  paraphrase  were  translated  into  the 
same  language  with  the  original,  it  would  then  be,  from 
that  original,  a  very  different  thing.  And  so,  if  a  com- 
petent Hebrew  scholar,  who  had  never  seen  David's 
Psalms,  would  take  Rouse's  Psalms,  and  translate  them 
into  Hebrew,  they  would  scarcely  be  like  David's 
Psalnis  at  all.  And  the  Church  of  Scotland  knew  this 
well.  They  knew  that  Rouse's  Psalms  were  nothing 
but  a  paraphrase;  and  they  called  t]iem  nothing  else. 
And  it  is  remarkable  how  Dr.  Pressly  conceals  this  fact 
when  he  brings  forward  the  authority  of  that  Church 
on  this  subject.  And  also,  how  by  artfully  combining 
his  own  langua^^^e  with  their  language,  he  represents 
them  as  using  the  word  version,  instead  of  the  word  par- 
aphrase.  On  page  116  he  says,  "After  receiving  the 
recoramendationof  the  Westminster  Assembly  of  divines^ 
this  version  was  brought  before  the  Church  of  Scotland. 
And  after  being  examined  with  particular  care  by  her 


62 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Judicatories,  it  was  finally,  in  the  year  1649,  adopted  by 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland,  as  be- 
ing 'more  agreeable  to  the  original  text,'  than  any  ver- 
sion heretofore  prepared/'  But  we  find  from  the  record, 
that  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland 
in  this  case,  did  not  call  Rouse's  Psalms  a  version,  as 
the  Doctor  represents;  but  uniformly  called  them  a  par- 
aphrase. Touching  ihem  there  are  several  acts;  and  in 
all  they  are  called  a  parapJirase,  One  is,  an  "Act  for 
revising  the  paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  brought  from 
England,  with  a  recommendation  for  translating  the 
other  Scriptural  songs  in  meeter/'  Another  is,  an  **Act 
for  examining  the  paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  and  other 
Scriptural  songs."  Another  is,  an  **Act  of  the  Com- 
mission of  the  General  Assembly  approving  the  New 
paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  in  metre."  "The  Commission 
of  the  General  Assembly  having  with  great  diligence 

consideredthe  paraphrase  of  the  Psalms  in  metre,  do 

approve  the  said  paraphrase  as  it  is  now  compiled,  

hereby  authorizing  the  same  to  be  the  only  paraphrase 
of  the  Psalms  of  David  to  be  sung  in  the  Kirk  of  Scot- 
land: and  discharging  the  old  paraphrases,  and  any 

other  than  this  new  paraphrase  to  be  used  after  the 

first  day  of  May,  in  the  year  1650,"  How  very  differ- 
ent this  is  from  Dr.  Pressly's  representation.  He  repre- 
sents them  as  legislating  concerning  a  version,  or  trans- 
lation of  the  Psalms;  but  they  say  they  are  legislating  con_ 
corning  ^paraphrase  of  the  Psalms.  And  how  different 
his  language  is  from  theirs!  He  brings  them  forward  as 
authority;  and  he  is  afraid  to  use  their  language!  He 
does  not  use  the  word  paraphrase  even  once.  He  knew 
it  would  not  answer  his  purpose.  He  wished  to  have  it 
believed  that  his  Psalms  were  the  word  of  God:  but 
were  he  to  call  them  a  paraphrase  this  would  defeat  his 


/ 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODYe 


63 


design.  And  hence  he  has  to  adopt  an  entirely  differ- 
ent phraseology  from  that  of  the  Church  of  Scotland: 
proving  thereby,  that  his  views  are  entirely  different 
from  theirs  on  this  subject.  And  then  from  a  misrepre- 
sentation of  their  language  he  draws  a  conclusion  to  suit 
himself.  Because  he  has  offered  no  proof;  but  merely 
stated  some  historical  facts,  when  he  comes  to  the  fol- 
lowing very  logical  conclusion:  **This  version  then,  the 
reader  will  perceive,  is  a  translation  of  the  songs  of  in- 
spiration/' How  perceive  it]  Is  it  because  the  Eng- 
lish Parliament  **recommended  the  Psalms  published  hy 
Mr,  Rouse,  to  the  consideration  of  the  Westminister  As- 
sembly; and  this  Assembly  recommended  the  use  of 
them;  and  after  they  wei'e  revised,  the  Church  of  Scot- 
land authorized  them  under  the  name  of  a  paraphrase? 
Is  this  the  reason  why  "the  reader  will  perceive  they  are 
a  translation  of  the  songs  of  inspiration?  It  is  verily  so! 
This  is  all  the  proof  the  Doctor  brings  in  order  to  show 
that  they  are  a  translation!  And  the  best  he  can  bring 
from  the  authority  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  to  sus- 
tain his  views,  is,  that  she  considered  this  paraphrase, 
^^more  agreeable  to  the  original  text,'*  than  any  hereto- 
fore prepared.  This  is  saying  a  great  deal  for  him!  Is  it 
not?  But  the  Doctor  is  careful  jiotto  call  it  a  paraphrase: 
had  he  done  so,  he  could  not,  then,  have  said  it  is  a 
translation.  And  had  he  not  misrepresented  the  Churcb 
of  Scotland,  he  could  not  have  said,  from  her  legislation, 
*'the  reader  will  perceive  it  is  a  translation."  O  no! 
Dr.  Pressly  dare  not  call  his  Psalmody  by  the  name 
which  the  Church  of  Scotland  gave  it,  when  she  author- 
ized its  use!  And  it  is  obvious  he  claims  for  it  what 
that  Church  never  did,  viz:  that  it  is  the  word  of  God.  It 
is  an  invention  of  more  modern  date,  to  elevate  Rouse's 
Psalms  to  the  rank  and  authority  of  the  divine  Word. 


64 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


And  the  brief  examination  which  has  been  already  made 
is  sufficient  to  show  that  it  is  by  no  means  entitled  to  this 
rank.  Rouse  has  omitted  quite  a  quantity  of  matter 
contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  He  has  lopped  off  all 
the  inspired  titles:  the  word  SelaJi  which  occurs  fre- 
quently in  the  inspired  Psalms,  he  always  leaves  out; 
and  a  great  deal  more  which  was  given  by  inspiration. 
And  he  has  added  an  enormous  quantity  of  his  own 
thoughts  and  explanations;  according  as  he  understood 
the  passage  before  his  mind.  And  very  often  where  he 
does  attempt  to  give  the  truth  of  inspiration,  it  is  in  such 
uncouth  expressions,  and  such  an  awkward  construc- 
tion, that  it  is  almost  as  good  as  lost.  And  thus,  not 
unfrequently,  instead  of  the  sublime  passages  given  by 
the  Spirit,  we  have  nothing  but  the  beggarly  elements 
of  the  human  brain!  And  yet  this  is  what  Psalmonites 
would  palm  upon  the  world  for  the  word  of  God!  Verily 
they  are  culpable  in  no  small  degree  in  this  matter. 
And  it  is  surely  time  that  this  fraud  should  be  exposed, 
and  banished  from  the  Christain  Church.  A  grosser 
deception  has  hardly  ever  been  practised  upon  any  peo- 
ple, than  this  of  teaching  them  that  Rouse's  Psalms  are 
the  word  of  God.  And  yet  it  is  inculcated  upon  them 
from  their  very  infancy.  In  public  and  in  private;  in 
the  family  and  in  the  pulpit;  their  spiritual  guides  teach 
them,  that  Rouse's  Psalms  are  truly  and  properly  the 
Psalms  of  inspiration.  And  they  will  stand  up  in  open 
day,  and  explain  Rouse's  Psalms  just  as  if  they  were 
the  word  of  God!  And  who  has  not  heard  them  quoting 
from  Rouse's  paraphrase  to  prove  the  doctrine  they 
were  preachitigl  Why  it  is  with  them  a  common  prac- 
tice. Suppose  that  they  were  teaching  that  the  good 
man  will  not  only  pray,  but  will  also  look  for  an  answer 
to  his  prayers,  they  would  prove  it  by  the  example  of 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


65 


the  Psalmist,  saying:  early  will  direct  my  prayer  to 
thee,  and  looking  up,  an  answer  will  exjpectV^  They 
would  prove  ic  with  a  quotation  from  the  Bible,  which 
is  not  in  the  Bible  at  all !  As  I  heard  a  divine  of  consid- 
erable distinction  prove  that  the  Redeemer  would  crush 
all  opposition,  by  quoting  the  words:  "Thou  shalt  as 
with  a  weighty  rod  of  iron  break  them  all;  and  as  ^  jpot- 
ter'*s  sherd  thou  shalt  them  dash  in  pieces  smallT  In- 
deed some  of  them  prove  nearly  every  thing  by  quota- 
tions from  this  paraphrase,  without  ever  quoting  scrip- 
ture at  all.  How  exactly  the  Saviour's  language  applies 
to  them:  "In  vain  do  they  worship  me  teaching  for  doc- 
trines the  commandments  of  men!"  And  Dr.  Pressly, 
in  his  work  on  Psalmody  has  contributed  in  no  small 
measure  to  propagate  this  impious  fraud — to  encourage 
and  foster  this  cunning  deception  which  is  practised  upon 
the  people.  He  every  where  represents  Rouse's  para- 
phrase to  be  the  word  of  God. 

On  page  129,  he  says,  "The  songs  are  a  part  of  that 
Scripture  in  relation  to  which  it  is  said,  *A11  Scripture  is 
given  by  inspiration  of  God.'"  And  on  page  142,  he 
says,  "These  divine  songs,  not  merely  as  to  their  matter, 
but  as  divine  songs,  were  given  by  inspiration  of  God." 
And  on  page  131,  he  says,  "The  language  of  this  Psalm 
is  not  our  language;  nor  are  we  to  assume  it  as  our  own. 
It  is  the  language  of  the  Spirit  of  God."  And  on  page 
180,  he  says,  "This  book  is  the  production  of  the  ever- 
blessed  Spirit,  and  bears  upon  it,  in  characters  of  light, 
the  impress  of  his  own  infinite  wisdom.  It  is  the  Word 
of  God.  Of  no  other  collection  of  Psalms,  or  Hymns, 
can  it  be  said  without  daring  presumption,  this  is  the 
Word  of  God."  And  surely  Dr.  Pressly  is  guilty  of 
this  daring  presumption  when  he  says  of  Rouse's  para- 
phrase, "this  is  the  Word  of  God!"    Verily  it  is  a  daring 


66 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY 


outrage  committed  against  Gof3:  against  the  Word  of 
God:  against  the  Church  of  God:  and  against  everything 
sacred!  And  again  on  page  89  he  says,  "In  these  sacred 
hymns  we  have  not  an  exhibition  of  human  views  of 
divine  truth,  which  may  be  correct,  or  be  erroneous;  but 
we  have  the  Word  of  God  itself,  which  is  pure  as  silver 
tried  in  a  furnace  of  earth,  purified  seven  times/'  And 
again:  "This  book  is  the  workmanship  of  God,  the  pro- 
duction of  infinite  wisdom."  Perhaps  the  Doctor  would 
deny  that  he  uses  this  language  in  relation  to  Rouse's 
Psalms.  Well  if  he  does,  it  will  be  an  admission,  that 
the  language  is  not  applicable  to  them:  and  this  an  ad- 
mission, that  they  are  not  inspired.  Aud  it  will  follow 
that  he  is  guilty  of  all  that  we  alleged  could  be  proved: 
that  his  practice  contradicts  his  principles:  that  he  diso- 
beys what  he  believes  to  be  the  will  of  God:  and  uses  a 
Psalmody  for  which  he  says  he  has  no  authority.  And 
were  Dr.  Pressly  to  say,  that  he  uses  this  language  in 
relation  to  these  Psalms,  the  christian  public  would  surely 
be  astounded.  Were  he  to  say  that  Rouse's  paraphrase 
is  the  "workmanship  of  God,"  that  public  would  at  once 
pronounce  it  a  most  scandalous  falsehood!  Rouse's  par- 
aphrase the  **workmanship  of  God!"  Would  any  man 
dare  to  say  it?  And  if  none  dare  say  this,  none  dare  say 
these  Psalms  are  inspired:  for  what  is  inspired  is  the 
w^orkmanship  of  God.  But  though  the  Doctor  does  not 
say  just  in  these  words,  "Rouse's  paraphrase  is  the  work- 
manship of  God;"  yet  it  is  implied  in  all  his  language 
on  this  subject.  And  I  need  not  say  implied,  for  it  is  as 
good  as  expressed.  Look  at  his  language:  "This  version, 
then,  the  reader  will  perceive  is  a  translation  of  the 
songs  of  inspiration.  It  is  a  rendering  of  the  Word  of 
God  which  was  given  in  Hebrew  poetry,  into  English 
poetry."    And  on  page  178,  he  says,  *'But  to  call  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


67 


divine  songs  in  this  version  "Rouse's  Psalms,''  as  some 
are  pleased  to  do,  is  to  evidence  gross  ignorance,  or 
something  worse.  There  would  be  equal  propriety  in 
calling  the  Bible,  in  our  common  translation,  the  Bible  of 
the  translators  instead  of  the  Word  of  God."  Thus  he 
puts  Rouse's  paraphrase  on  a  perfect  equality  with  our 
common  translation  of  the  Bible!  And  teaches,  that  the 
one  has  as  good  a  claim  to  be  called  the  Word  of  God  as 
the  other!  And  when  a  man  does  this,  what  might  we 
suppose  he  would  not  do  in  order  to  support  his  own 
views?'  And  if  Rouse's  version  ought  no  more  to  be 
called  Rouse's  Psalms,  than  the  common  translation 
ought  to  be  called  the  Bible  of  the  translators;  then 
Rouse's  version  ought  no  more  to  be  called  a  paraphrase, 
than  the  common  translation  ought  to  be  called  a  para- 
phrase. But  all  admit,  it  would  be  a  slander  upon  the 
Bible  to  call  our  common  translation  a  paraphrase:  and 
according  to  the  Doctor  it  would  be  equally  so  to  call 
Rouse's  version  a  paraphrase.  Ah!  ye  Scotch,  ye  are 
guilty!  Thus  Dr.  Pressly,  in  the  plenitude  of  his  author- 
ity, "or  something  worse,"  undertakes  to  rebuke  the  ven- 
erable. Church  of  Scotland,  for  miscalling  his  inspired 
Psalmody.  It  is  remarkable  to  what  lengths  men  will 
go  when  laboring  to  support  false  notions.  By  misrep- 
resentanon  he  attempts  to  bring  in  these  venerable  fath- 
ers to  support  his  groundless  assumption;  and  when  they 
are  too  hoi^est  to  do  it,  he  rebukes  them  sharply  for  their 
integrity.  In  his  opinion  they  manifest  "gross  ignorance, 
or  something  worse!"  He  is  quite  offended  because  they 
call  things  by  their  right  names.  And  since  the  Doctor 
is  offended,  if  we  call  Rouse's  Psalms  Rouse's  Psalms, 
what  shall  we  call  them]  We  have  seen,  and  any  man 
that  examines  can  see,  that  they  are  not  the  Psalms  of 
inspiration:  not  the  Psalms  of  the  Bible  and  what  shall 


68 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


we  call  them?  Were  we  to  adopt  the  language  of  the 
Church  of  Scotland,  and  call  them  a  paraphrase,  the  Doc- 
tor would  still  be  offended,  and  what  shall  we  call  themi 
I  suppose  the  Doctor  would  be  pleased  to  have  them 
called  David's  Psalms:  just  as  the  Papist  is  pleased  to 
have  his  Church  called  the  Catholic  Church.  But  then 
there  is  great  danger  in  mis-applying  names.  People  are 
often  brought,  in  this  way,  to  take  things  for  what  they 
are  not.  Men  have  brought  in  errors  by  wrapping  them 
up  in  the  language  of  truth.  And  thus  Rouse's  para- 
phrase is  palmed  upon  the  people  for  the  Word  of  God 
by  speaking  of  it  in  language  which  is  applicable  only  to 
that  word.  By  this  means,  among  Psalmoriites,  the  book 
of  Psalms  is  in  a  great  measure,  neglected,  and  Rouse's 
paraphrase  foisted  into  its  place.  They  can  recite  to  you 
large  portions  of  the  paraphrase  while  they  could  not 
quote  a  single  verse  from  the  Psalms.  They  have  liter- 
ally "made  void  the  law  by  their  tradition,"— they  have 
set  aside  the  word  of  God  and  adopted  Rouse's  para- 
phrase in  its  place.  It  is  a  notrious  and  incontrovertable 
fact,  that  they  are  in  the  constant  and  regular  practice  of 
taking  Rouse's  paraphrase  for  the  word  of  God.  And 
if  they  have  not  entirely  set  aside  the  Book  of  Psalms, 
they  have  at  least  added  to  the  word  of  God  Rouse's 
entire  collection  of  paraphrases:  for  they  do  positively 
esteem  and  use  these  paraphrases  as  of  equal  authority 
with  the  Scriptures:  so  that,  to  God's  word  they  have 
actually  added  this  entire  book!  And  yet,  these  are  the 
very  people  who  accuse  Neodists  of  adding  to  the  word 
of  God,  merely  because  they  sing  hymns!  But  look  at 
the  difference!  Neodists  never  pretended,  that  their 
hymns  were  the  word  of  God:  they  never  pretended 
that  Watts'  Psalms  were  the  word  of  God.  And  hence 
they  never  were,  in  any  way  guilty  of  adding  to  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


69 


word  of  God.  But  Psalraonites  do  pretend  tliat  their 
Psalmody  is  the  word  of  God,  t}iouo:h  it  is  not.  They  say 
it — they  practice  upon  it — they  preach  upon  it — they  pro- 
claim it  everywhere.  And  thus  they  add  a  whole  book 
to  the  Bible,  which  is  not  in  the  inspired  Book  at  all! 
And  if  this  is  not  "arrogating  to  themselves  the  preroga- 
tive of  Jeliovah!"  what  is  it?  And  if  this  is  not  ^'offering 
stransre  fire  before  the  Lord!'*  what  is  ir]  And  if  this  is 
not  "building  an  altar  of  one  kind  of  stone  instead  of 
another!"  what  is  it]  And  if  this  is  not  "offering  a  pig 
instead  of  a  kid!"  what  is  iti  When  they  thus  take  the 
liberty  of  adding  a  whole  book  to  the  word  of  God,  they 
surely  ought  to  be  able  to  answer  the  question;  *'Who 
hath  required  this  at  y<:)ur  hands]"  The  people  I  know 
have  done  it  ignorantly;  and  perhaps  also  their  rulers: 
and  it  is  sincerely  hoped,  the  awful  denunciations  of  the 
Book  of  Revelation  are  not  visited  upon  them.  But 
though  they  do  it  ignorantly,  their  conduct  in  this  matter 
is  surely  very  culpable.  Teacliing  that  such  a  composi- 
tion as  Rouse's  paraphrase  is  given  "by  infinite  wisdom" 
— "is  the  workmanship  of  God!"  O,  horrible!  How 
much  short  is  it  of  blasphemy]  So  derogatory  to  the 
wisdom  of  Heaven — so  slanderous  to  the  word  of  God — 
and  so  destructive  to  the  cause  of  truth!  If  I  could  as- 
sume like  Dr.  Pressly,  that  I  am  authorized  to  act  for 
the  Protestant  Church  of  Chi  ist,  then  I  too,  in  the  name 
of  that  Church,  would  protest  against  this  Bible-dishon- 
oring im[)osture,  which  is  practised  so  unblushingly  in 
this  christian  enlightened  larid! 

But  in  another  way  we  may  very  easily  prove,  that 
Rouse's  paraphrase  is  not  th^  word  of  God,  inasmuch  as 
it  is  nothing  but  haman  comjyosure.  That  it  is  this,  and 
nothing  but  this,  we  can  show  from  the  authority  of  Dr. 
Pressly  himself.    And  the  authority  of  a  man  who  pre- 


70 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


sumes  to  act  in  the  name  of  the  Protestant  Church  of 
Christ,  is  surely  no  mean  authority.  The  Catholic  can 
prove  any  thing  when  he  has  the  authority  of  the  Pope 
on  his  side.  And  what  may  I  not  prove  when  I  have 
the  authority  of  the  Pontifex  inaximus,  **of  the  Protestant 
Church  of  Christ/'  on  my  side]  And  now  for  the  proof. 
On  page  26,  the  Doctor  says,  "Human  composure  is  any 
thing  composed  by  men."  That  is  the  plain  truth.  No 
matter  what  may  be  the  subject-matter  of  a  composi- 
tion, nor  the  source  whence  the  materials  of  which  it  is 
formed  are  drawn,  if  it  has  been  composed  by  man,  it  is 
to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  "human  composure/' 
Now  observe,  "Human  composure  is  any  thing  compo- 
sed by  men:"  and  also;  "if  it  has  been  composed  by 
man,  it  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  human  compo- 
sure.'' V/hat  is  it  to  cojnpose?  It  is  to  arrange  ideas, 
congrously.  in  suitable  language.  This  may  be  done 
in  the  mind  without  writing.  But  the  common  mean- 
ing of  compose,  is  to  write  something,  i.  e.  to  set  forth 
ideas  orderly,  in  suitable  language.  But  there  can 
be  no  composition  without  the  use  of  language.  You 
may  collect  ideas:  but  that  is  not  composing.  You 
may  obtain  ideas  by  study:  but  that  is  not  composing. 
You  may  have  a  great  mass  of  ideas,  but  have  no  com- 
position. You  see,  then,  that  getting  ideas  is  not  com- 
posing; having  ideas  is  not  composing.  But  setting  forth 
your  ideas  orderly,  in  suitable  language,  is  composing. 
Hence,  composing  consists  in  using  language  appropri- 
ately to  express  or  set  forth  ideas.  It  is  like  making  a 
coat.  You  may  collect  the  materials;  you  may  get  the 
cloth;  you  may  cut  it  out;  you  may  even  lay  the  pieces 
together  in  their  proper  places;  and  you  may  get  the 
thread  too;  but  all  this  is  not  making  the  coat.  You 
must  use  the  thread  so  as  to  fix  the  parts  fitly  together. 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


71 


And  using  the  thread  in  this  manner  is  making  the  coat. 
And  the  man  who  uses  tlie  thread,  is  the  man  who  makes 
the  coat: — it  is  his  makings  no  matter  what  may  be  "the 
source  whence  the  materials  of  which  it  is  formed  are 
drawn.''  And  as  making  a  coat  consists  in  using  thread 
appropriately;  so  composing  consists  in  using  language 
appropriately.  And  as  the  making  is  the  man's  who 
uses  the  thread,  so  the  composition  is  the  man's  who  uses 
the  language.  Who  used  the  English  language  then  in 
composing  Rouse's  paraphrase?  Was  it  an  inspired 
man,  or  an  uninspired  man]  No  inspired  man  ever 
wrote  in  the  English  language.  They  all  wrote  either 
in  Hebrew  or  Greek.  Hence,  no  inspired  man  ever 
used  language  in  composing  this  paraphrase;  and  hence, 
no  inspired  man  ever  composed  it:  hence  too,  it  was  an 
uninspired  man  who  used  the  language,  i.  e.  composed 
this  paraphrase:  and  thus,  it  must  be  human  composure: 
for  the  Dr.  says,  "human  composure  is  any  thing  com- 
posed by  man."  Whatever  man  composes  is  human 
composure,  i.  e.  whatever  writing  is  framed  by  man's  use 
of  language,  is  human  composition,  no  matter  where  he 
may  have  got  his  ideas.  Now  let  us  apply  this  to  the 
case  of  Rouse.  He  sits  down  to  write  his  first  Psalm; 
and  the  question  is,  whose  composition  will  it  be  when 
it  is  written]  Will  it  be  his  or  the  composition  of  the 
Spirit]  Does  Rouse  speak  as  the  Spirit  gives  him  utter- 
ance] No:  for  then  he  would  be  an  inspired  man.  He 
does  not  get  his  language,  then,  from  the  Spirit,  But 
though  he  is  not  inspired,  he  may  get  his  ideas  from  the 
Spirit,  by  examining  what  the  Spirit  has  said  in  the  He- 
brew, or  he  may  get  the  ideas  fr^m  the  prose  translation. 
And  in  this  way  he  may  obtain  the  ideas  from  the  Spirit, 
But  the  giving  of  these  ideas  is  all  that  the  Spirit  does  in 
the  matter.    He  gives  the  ideas  and  Rouse  has  to  do  the 


72 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


rest.  Rouse  has  to  set  forth  these  ideas  in  the  use  of 
appropriate  language,  i.  e.  he  has  to  compose.  And 
in  his  using  language,  he  has  to  be  guided  by  human 
wisdom  alone.  The  Spirit  has  nothing  to  do  with  this, 
i.  e.  He  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  com[)Osing:  it  is  the 
product  entirely  of  man's  wisdom.  And  thus  we  see, 
that  the  composition  is  wholly  from  Rouse;  while  the 
ideas  may  all  be  from  the  Spirit  of  God.  Man,  and  only 
man  composed  it.  And  the  Doctor  says,  anything  com" 
posed  by  man,  is  "human  composure."  Thus  we  see, 
that  Rouse's  first  Psalm  is  composed  by  man;  and  that 
it  is  human  composure,  And  every  other  one  of  his 
Psalms  is  composed  by  man;  and  every  one  of  them  is 
human  composure.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  for  them 
to  be  any  thing  else,  accoiding  to  the  Doctor's  defini- 
tion of  human  composure.  And  he  understands  by 
"human  composure,"  a  composition  not  having  any- 
thing in  it  from  God;  but  that  all  it  contains  is  from  man; 
wholly  from  man.  He  calls  it  man's  production,  mean- 
ing, that  all  that  it  is,  and  all  that  it  has,  is  from  man: 
that  in  toto  it  is  of  man,  and  of  man  alone.  And  thus 
again  we  bring  against  him  what  we  alleged,  that  he  is 
guilty  of  using  a  Psalmody  entirely  from  man;  and 
for  which  he  says  he  has  no  authority! 

But  again:  He  says,  "In  truth,  a  poem  composed  by 
man,  and  a  human  composure,  are  phrases  which  if  not 
tautological,  certainly  approximate  so  nearly  to  that 
character,  that  it  would  require  very  accute  logical 
powers  to  detect  the  difference  in  their  import."  Ac- 
cording to  this  a  poem  composed  by  man  and  a  human 
composure  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  Well,  when 
Rouse  composed  his  first  Psalm,  by  whom  was  it  compo- 
sed] Was  it  composed  by  a  man  or  was  it  not?  If  it 
was  composed  by  a  man  it  is  human  composure.  And 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


73 


Dr.  Pressly  must  prove,  that  the  man  who  composed 
Rouse's  Psalms,  was  not  a  man,  before  he  can  make 
them  out  anything  but  human  composure.  There  is 
positively  nothing  plainer  than  this.  And  by  human 
composure  the  Doctor  means,  what  is  merely  from  man: 
and  thus  again,  we  see,  that  he  uses  a  Psalmody  for 
which  he  says  he  has  no  authority. 

But  again;  the  Doctor  says,  *^lf  the  poem  as  such  is 

the  production  of  man  it  is  certain  that,  if  plain 

language  is  to  be  understood  according  to  its  natural 
acceptation,  it  is,  a  human  composure."  Here  he  says, 
if  the  poem,  as  a  poem,  is  the  production  of  man,  it  is 
human  composure."  Now  all  Rouse's  Psalms,  as  poems 
are  the  production  of  man.  Take  Rouse's  first  Psalm; 
it  is  essential  to  it,  that  it  be  written  in  the  English  lan- 
guage: it  is  essential  to  it,  that  it  be  in  Iambic  verse  in  that 
language.  Its.  existence  as  a  poem  depends  on  these- 
Take  these  away  and  it  would  cease  to  be.  These  es- 
sentials then,  are  the  production  of  man.  No  inspired 
man  ever  wrote  a  poem  in  Iambic  verse  in  the  English 
language.  All  such  poems  must  have  their  existence 
from  uninspired  men.  And  hence  Rouse's  first  Psalm, 
*'as  a  poem,"  is  from  man:  what  makes  it  a  poem  is 
from  man:  and  therefore  it  can  be  nothing  but ''a  human 
composure." 

Another  position  of  the  Doctor's  is,  that  every  poem 
not  found  in  the  Bible  is  human  composure.  His  words 
are;  *'The  sentiments  contained  in  the  poem,  if  you 
please,  may  all  be  gathered  from  the  Bible;  but  the  poem 
itself  is  not  in  the  Bible."  Well  then,  are  there  any  of 
Rouse's  poems  in  the  Bible]  Where  could  we  find  one 
of  them?  Suppose  we  could  find  the  ideas  contained  in 
Rouse's  poems  in  the  Bible:  but  then  the  ideas  are  not 
the  poems.  The  poems  are  compoistions  constructed 
7 


74 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


according  to  the  rules  of  versification  in  the  English  lan- 
guage.   But  where  could  we  find  one  of  these  in  the 
Bible]    Why  the  Bible  was  written  many  hundreds  of 
years  before  the  English  language  was  in  existence. 
And  hence  it  is  impossible  for  an  English  poem,  as  such, 
to  be  in  the  Bible.  That  that  is  essential  to  it,  as  an  Eng- 
lish poem,  renders  it  impossible  for  it  to  be  in  the  Bible; 
the  ideas  may,  but  the  poem  itself  cannot  be  there.  And 
the  Doctor  says,  the  poem  itself  must  be  there  or  it  is- 
human  composure.''  *'The  sentiments,"  he  says,  *'may  all 
be  gathered  from  the  Bible;  but  the  poem  itself  is  not  in 
the  Bible;''  and  thus  he  proves  it  to  be  human  composure. 
And  thus  he  proves,  that  every  one  of  Rouse^s  poems 
can  possibly  be  nothing  else  but,  human  composure.  And 
indeed  all  that  lie  says,  about  human  composure  proves 
the  very  same  thing.    lie  absolutely  sweeps  clean  away 
the  whole  foundation  of  pretence  for  the  inspiration  of 
his  own  Psalmody;  and  leaves  the  entire  Psalmonistic 
cause  a  hopeless,  total  wreck!    And  thus,  viewing  these 
Psalms  of  Rouse  as  we  may;  and  also  by  the  authority 
of  Dr.  Pressly  himself,  we  find  they  are  nothing  but 
**human  composure."    And  Psalmonites  may  cease  their 
cry  against  the  use  of  uninspired  songs,  and  human  com- 
position; for  in  all  they  say  they  are  only  condemning 
themselves.    And  when  you  hear  one  of  their  preach- 
ers commencing  a  harangue  on  Psalmody,  you  may  just 
set  it  down,  that  he  is  going  to  blacken  his  own  charac- 
ter; for  every  word  he  says  to  condemn  others  is  appli- 
cable to  himself. 

I  have  however,  a  better  opinion  of  the  Doctor's 
Psalmody  than  his  definition  of  ''human  composure," 
would  make  it.  His  definition  would  make  it  to  be,  not 
from  Heaven  but  of  men.  For  he  means  by  ''human 
composure,"  something  from  man:  entirely  from  man. 


MORTOxN^  ON  PSALMODY. 


Something  of  which  man  is  the  sole  origin  and  author. 
Such  compositions  he  styles:  **The  productions  of  unin- 
spired men.  The  effusions  of  pious  well-meaning,  but 
fallible  men:"  obviously  meaning  that  they  have  nothing 
to  do  with  divine  inspiration.  For  if  this  is  not  his  mea- 
ning, it  will  he  an  admission,  that  songs  composed  by 
uninspired  men,  may  nevertheless,  in  one  respect,  be  in 
spired.  It  will  be  an  admission,  that  the  truth  set  forth 
in  the  song,  may  be  the  truth  of  inspiration;  while  the 
language  or  composure,  is  merely  human.  And  hence, 
that  it  is  an  inspired  song  as  far  as  this  truth,  or  subject" 
matter  is  concerned:  because  it  contains  and  sets  forth 
inspired  truth.  And  if  the  subject-matter  is  inspired, 
that  is  enough:  the  song  is  an  inspired  song.  For  every 
body  knows,  and  the  Doctor  admits  it,  that  the  composi- 
tion has  its  character  from  the  subject-matter.  Every 
song,  then,  having  for  its  subject-matter  inspired  truth, 
is  in  reality  an  inspired  song.  But  the  Doctor  denies 
this.  He  maintains  that  a  song  composed  by  an  unin- 
spired man  can  in  no  sense  be  an  inspired  song.  All 
such  songs  he  holds  to  be  uninspired — that  they  are  from 
man — that  they  are,  what  he  loves  to  call  "human  com- 
posure." His  Psalmody,  then,  I  think  is  better  than  his 
definition  of  "human  composure,"  would  make  it.  For 
his  definition  would  make  it,  to  be  human,  both  as  to  the 
language  and  also  as  to  the  ideas.  Every  composition 
consists  of  these  two  parts — ideas  and  language.  And 
the  one  may  be  of  inspiration;  while  the  other  is  of  man. 
It  may  be  inspired  truth  clothed  in  such  language  as 
human  wisdom  thinks  best.  The  composition  is  human 
as  far  as  the  selection  and  arrangement  of  the  language 
is  concerned:  but  as  far  as  the  ideas,  or  the  matter  is 
concerned  it  may  be  inspired,  or  divine.  It  is  important 
to  bear  in  mind,  then,  that  every  composition  consists  of 


76 


"MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


two  parts;  the  language  and  the  ideas:  and  the  one  may 
be  from  Heaven,  while  the  other  is  of  men.    The  matter 
of  the  composition  may  be  from  the  Spirit;  and  the  lan- 
guage be  from  man.    Such  a  composition,  then,  in  one 
respect  will  be  human;  and  in  another  respect  it  will  be 
inspired,  or  divine.    And  it  is  its  matter  that  makes  it 
different  from  every  other  composition  of  man.    As  to 
the  language,  or  composing,  or  composure,  it  is  like 
every  other  human  composition:  but  as  to  the  matter^  it  is 
unlike  every  other  human  composition.    It  is  its  matter, 
then,  that  gives  it  a  distinctive  character:  that  makes  it 
the  kind  of  composition  that  it  is.    Just  as  it  is  the 
matter  of  any  composition  that  gives  it  a  distinctive  char- 
acter.   There  may  be  many  compositions,  each  having 
its  distinctive  character,  all  written  by  the  same  author. 
Dr.  Comstock  may  have  one  composition  on  Philosophy, 
another  on  Botany,  another  on  Geology,  and  another  on 
Chemistry.    Each  one  has  its  distinctive  character:  it  is 
different  from  all  the  others.    But  it  is  not  the  compo- 
sure  that  makes  it  different.    In  this  respect  they  are  all 
alike;  for  they  are  all  the  composure  of  Dr.  Comstock. 
It  is  the  subject  treated,  or  the  matter  of  the  composition, 
that  makes  the  one  a  Geological  treatise:  the  other  a 
treatise  on  Philosophy,  etc.    And  so  in  a  treatise  on  di- 
vine things;  it  is  not  the  composure;  but  the  subject  trea- 
ted, or  the  matter  of  the  composition,  that  gives  it  its  dis- 
tinctive character:  that  makes  it  not  a  human,  but  an  in- 
spired,  or  divine  composition.    It  is  not  usual  however, 
to  call  such  a  work,  ''a  divine  work,  or  a  divine  compo' 
sition:  just  as  it  is  not  usual  to  call  a  treatise  on  Chemis- 
try, a  chemical  work,  or  a  chemical  composition;"  yet 
in  each  case  it  is  the  matter  that  gives  to  the  composition 
its  distinctive  character,  name  that  composition  as  you 
may.    And  though  it  may  not  be  customary,  yet  it  does 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


77 


not  conflict  with  the  principles  of  truth,  to  call  a  treatise 
on  divine  things,  ''a  divine  composition.''  Why  may  we 
not  call  a  composition  according  to  its  distinctive  charac- 
ter? If  its  character  is  divine,  why  not  call  it  such? — 
If  the  rose  has  its  distinctive  color  from  the  petals,  and 
the  petals  are  red,  why  not  call  it  a  red  rose  ?  Why  call 
it  white  ?  And  if  the  composition  has  its  distinctive  char- 
acter from  the  matter,  and  the  matter  is  divine,  why  not 
call  it  a  divine  composition?  Now  Dr.  Pressly  admits, 
that  the  rose  has  its  distinctive  color  from  the  petals,  and 
that  the  petals  are  red;  but  he  solemnly  protests  against 
calling  it  a  red  rose;  and  maintains,  that  it  ought  to  be 
called  white.  In  other  words,  he  admits,  that  the  com* 
position  has  its  distinctive  character  from  the  matter,  and 
that  the  matter  is  divine;  but  protests  against  calling  it  a 
divine  composition.  Here  are  his  words:  "True:  it  is 
the  subject  matter  of  any  composition,  in  prose  or  verse, 
that  gives  it  its  distinctive  character."  Here  he  admits 
that  if  the  matter  is  divine,  the  composition  has  the  same 
character.  And  yet  on  the  very  next  page  he  protests 
against  calling  it  according  to  its  character.  He  says, 
Dr.  Ralston  "maintains,  that  a  composition,  which  has 
been  written  and  arranged  by  man,  provided  the  matter 
of  it  be  taken  from  the  Bible,  is  not  a  human  composure, 
but  is  divine."  And  then  he  says,  "according  to  this 
every  evangelical  sermon,"  etc.  "in  the  world,  is  a  di- 
vine composition!  Against  such  an  abuse  of  language, 
for  the  purpose  of  elevating  the  compositions  of  men  to 
a  level  with  the  word  of  God,  I  enter  my  solemn  pro- 
test." We  find,  that  the  Doctor  is  a  gredX  protester;  and 
no  wonder  when  he  ranks  himself  at  the  head  of  the 
Protestant  Church,  and  acts  in  her  name!  But  then  his 
Highness  ought  to  be  careful  not  to  protest  against  him- 
self. For  here  he  protests  against  the  very  thing  he 
7* 


78 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


admits.  He  admits  the  composition  to  be  divine,  and 
then  protests  against  calling  it  so  !  He  admits  the  mat- 
er to  be  from  the  Bible:  hence  it  is  divine  matter:  he 
admits  the  composition  has  its  character  from  this  mat- 
ter; and  hence  it  is  divine  composition;  and  then  solemnly 
protests  against  calling  it  such — protests  that  it  is  no 
such  thing!    O  consistency!  how  lovely  thou  art! 

But  v^hy  does  the  Doctor  raise  such  a  cry  about  "ele- 
vating the  composition  of  men  to  a  level  vs^ith  the  word 
God]*'  Why  does  he  again  lift  up  his  voice,  and  from 
his  cathedra  pontificia,  exclaim  *'In  the  name  of  the 
Protestant  Church  of  Christ  I  protest  against  the  princi* 
pie,  which  maintains  that  the  one  can  with  any  propriety 
be  elevated  to  a  level  with  the  other."  What  is  the  use 
of  these  solemn  protestations  against  a  principle  which 
nobody  holds  except  infidels'?  The  Doctor  is  the  first,  in 
this  controversy,  to  advance  such  a  principle.  But  then, 
it  vv^ill  give  some  show  of  plausibility  to  his  reasoning, 
when  he  cannot  confute  his  opponent,  to  raise  up  some- 
thing that  he  can  confute,  attack,  and  overthrow  it.  And 
then,  too,  it  will  be  advantageous  to  his  cause,  to  repre- 
sent his  opponent  as  holding  principles  which  all  good 
men  condemn.  But  the  cause  of  truth  does  not  need 
such  a  mode  of  defence.  And  neither  the  venerable  Dr. 
Ralston,  nor  any  other  writer  on  this  subject,  has  ever 
maintained  that  the  compositions  of  men  were  of  equal 
authority,  or  on  a  level  with  the  word  of  God.  They 
only  maintain  that  a  composition,  the  subject  of  which  is 
divine,  is  not,  in  every  respect,  a  human  composition:  i, 
e.  that  such  a  composition  is  not  wholly  from  man:  but 
that  it  sets  forth  divine  truth,  though  the  medium  of  con- 
veyance is  human  composure.  And  hence,  as  Dr.  Press- 
ly  admits  the  composition  has  its  character  from  this  di- 
vine truth,  that  it  may  properly  be  called  a  divine  com- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


79 


position;  though  they  do  not  consider  it  on  a  level  with 
the  word  of  Grod:  no  more  than  they  consider  Rouse's 
paraphrase  of  equal  authority  or  on  a  level  with  the 
word  of  God,  while  the  subject  matter  of  that  paraphrase 
may  be  divine.  The  word  of  God  is  in  every  respect 
divine:  but  such  a  composition  only  in  one  respect,  i.  e. 
on  account  of  the  subject-matter  it  contains.  You  have 
two  silver  cups;  the  composition  of  both  is  the  same. 
You  fill  the  one  with  water  and  the  other  with  wine. 
Then,  the  one  you  call  the  water-cup,  and  the  other  the 
wine-cup.  Neither  of  them  has  its  distinctive  character 
from  its  composition,  which  is  silver,  but  from  what  it  con- 
tains.  The  water-cup  is  so  called  because  it  contains 
water:  the  wine-cup  is  so  called  because  it  contains  wine. 
So  you  have  two  compositions,  the  one  on  a  divine  sub- 
ject, the  other  on  a  human  subject.  And  you  call  the 
one  a  divine  composition  on  account  of  what  it  contains; 
and  the  other  a  human  composition  on  account  of  what 
it  contains.  But  miraculous  power  could  form  another 
cup,  not  of  silver,  but  of  wine  itself.  This  is  a  wine  cup 
independently  of  what  it  might  contain.  You  fill  it  with 
wine,  and  it  is  still  a  wine-cup,  in  every  respect:  both  on 
account  of  what  it  contains;  and  also  on  account  of  its 
own  composition.  The  first  wine-cup  is  not  equal  to 
this  one  nor  on  a  level  with  it;  though  they  both  have  the 
same  name.  Nor  have  they  the  same  name  on  precisely 
the  same  account.  The  one  represents  divine  truth  set 
forth  in  divine  composure:  the  other  divine  truth  set 
forth  in  human  composure.  In  the  one  case  you  have  a 
Divine  Composer  on  a  divine  subject:  in  the  other,  you 
have  a  human  composer  on  a  divine  subject.  The  com- 
position of  the  one  will  be  superior  to  the  composition 
of  the  other.  The  one  will  be  infallibly  correct:  while 
the  other  will  be  liable  to  the  blemishes  of  human  im- 


80 


MORTOIV  ON  PSALMODY. 


perfection.  The  human  composer,  while  handling  his 
divine  subject,  may  likely  mar  and  disfigure  it  much,  on 
account  of  his  imperfection;  just  as  Rouse  has  done, 
while  handling  the  divine  subjects  contained  in  the  book 
of  Psalms.  But  though  the  subject  may  bear  the  blem- 
ishes of  human  weakness  it  is  a  divine  subject  still.  And 
though  the  composition  is  not  inspired  in  the  full  sense 
of  the  word,  yet  it  is  inspired  as  far  as  the  subject-matter 
is  that  of  inspiration.  And  this  is  what  we  say  of  Rouse's 
Psalms,  that  they  are  not  inspired  in  the  same  sense  in 
which  the  word  of  God  is  inspired,  but  only  so  far  as 
they  set  forth  inspired  truth.  The  inspiration  of  the  one 
is  plenary;  the  inspiration  of  the  other  is  only  partial- 
Rouse's  Psalms  are  not  entirely  from  man,  as  Dr.  Press- 
ly's  definition  of  "human  composure"  would  make  them. 
They  are  not  the  word  of  God,  yet  they  contain  much 
inspired  truth:  it  came  from  heaven:  it  is  precious  and 
divine;  though  we  do  not  find  it  in  precisely  the  same 
state  as  it  is  in  the  pure  word  of  God. 

You  pass  along  the  pleasant  vale,  beautified  with  the 
various  flowers  that  smile  forth  from  beside  your  path. 
You  see  before  you  on  a  gentle  elevation,  the  verdant 
grove,  in  all  its  inviting  and  luxuriant  loveliness.  De- 
lighted you  enter;  and  as  you  pass  up,  the  ear  is  charmed 
wath  melody  and  song,  poured  forth^by  the  feathered 
songsters  of  the  wood.  You  reach  the  opening  above, 
and  lo  !  at  your  feet  there  lies  a  spacious  crystal  foun- 
tain. The  margin,  all  around,  is  adorned  with  the 
choicest  verdure  and  bloom.  The  myrtle,  palm,  and 
amaranth,  the  eglantine  and  rose.  And  the  clear  rocky 
bottom  of  gems  and  gold  pours  forth  a  constant,  pure,  pe. 
lucid  stream,  in  that  sparkling  fountain,  ever  flowing,  and 
forever  full.  With  pleasing  admiration  you  stand  and  gaze 
into  the  clear  sparkling  pool;  and  the  sweet  voice  of  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


81 


water  nymph  calls  you  to  drink.  You  quaff  it,  and  O 
how  refreshing!  how  exhilerating!  how  healing  !  But 
again,  you  are  gone  from  the  crystal  fountain  and  the 
pleasant  grove.  And  in  your  perambulations  through 
the  hills  and  valleys  you  light  upon  a  stream;  from  it  you 
take  to  quench  your  thirst,  and  you  are  delighted;  for 
by  its  peculiar  flavor  you  know  it  to  be  the  healing  wa- 
ter from  the  crystal  fountain.  But  then  it  is  impaired 
in  its  purity:  earthy  sediment  has  mingled  with  it  in  its 
passage  from  the  fountain;  and  to  have  it  in  its  unming- 
led  purity  you  must  repair  to  the  crystal  fountan  itself. 
Again,  you  pass  on  to  the  dwelling  of  your  friend;  and 
in  his  kindness  he  offers  you  the  cup  of  hospitality: 
again  you  are  delighted!  he  too  has  been  at  the  crystal 
fountain;  and  the  same  healing  water  is  here  to  cheer 
your  heart.  But  then  it  is  not  in  its  purity;  it  has  re- 
ceived something  of  the  vessels  tang  from  which  it  is 
dispensed:  and  to  have  it  free  from  all  admixture,  you 
must  repair  to  the  chrystal  fountain  itself.  The  water 
may  be  found  in  other  places;  but  only  at  the  fountain 
can  it  be  had  in  its  unmingled  purity.  But  notwithstand- 
ing, you  always  know,  and  are  delighted  with  the  heal- 
ing water  from  the  crystal  fountain  ! 

And  thus  it  is  with  the  word  of  God  and  the  people  of 
God.  It  is  to  them  a  crystal  fountain,  full  of  the  pure  un- 
mingled water  of  life.  This  healing  water  is  pleasant  and 
refreshing  to  them,  wherever  it  may  be  found,  even  though 
they  do  not  always  draw  it  unmingled  from  the  fountain  it- 
self. The  compositions  of  pious  men;  their  exhortations 
their  prayers,  their  hymns,  their  sermons,  etc.  are  the 
various  channels  and  vessels  by  which  this  healing  wa- 
ter is  dispensed.  It  is  true,  these  vessels  are  constructed 
by  human  wisdom;  and  the  healing  water  in  passing 
through  them  may  be  marred  in  its  purity,  there  may  be 


82 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


earthy  sediment  or  the  vessel's  taint,  but  it  is  the  same 
water  of  life  still.  These  religious  compositions,  then, 
that  are  filled  with  divine  truth,  are  not  the  mrre  produc- 
tions of  uninspired  men,  as  Dr.  Pressly  represents  them. 
If  they  were,  how  could  they  edify  and  comfort  the  peo- 
ple of  God]  If  they  contain  no  divine  truth,  which  must 
be  the  case  if  they  are  the  productions  of  uninspired  men, 
of  what  profit  can  they  be  to  His  children]  It  is  man 
merely  that  speaks  to  them,  and  it  is  of  little  moment 
what  he  may  say.  If  such  works  as  Baxter's  Saint's 
Rest,  and  Flavel's  Fountain  of  Life,  are  the  mere  produc- 
tions of  uninspired  men,  i.  e.  if  they  do  not  contain  divine 
truth:  if  it  is  not  God  who  speaks  in  them  to  the  pious 
soul,  how  is  it,  that  that  soul  is  so  delighted  in  their  pe- 
rusal? If  they  are  merely  man's  production,  how  can 
they  afford  any  foundation  for  the  faith,  the  hope,  the 
joy,  the  comfort,  of  the  godly  man]  O  no!  it  is  not  man's 
productions,  but  divine  truth,  that  awakens  and  sustains 
these  heavenly  emotions  in  the  pious  heart.  And  how 
could  the  people  be  edified  by  the  preaching  of  the  Gos- 
pel, if  the  sermons  are  nothing  but  the  productions  of 
uninspired  men]  How  could  the  words  of  the  preacher 
have  any  effect,  if  what  he  says  is  merely  from  himself] 
His  sermon  is  his  own  composition,  and  if  it  is  therefore 
a  mere  "human  production,  or  the  effusion  of  a  pious 
well-meaning,  but  fallible  man,"  as  Dr.  Pressly  teaches, 
who  cares  for  aught  that  the  preacher  may  say]  or  how 
will  his  sayings  sanctify  and  save  the  souls  of  men] 
And  if  his  sermon  is  the  production  of  man,  then  it  is 
man's  gospel  that  he  preaches,  and'  not  the  gospel  of 
God!  O  surely !  a  gospel  sermon  is  not  the  production  of 
an  uninspired  man !  Is  not  the  minister  of  the  gospel  an 
ambassador  for  Christ,  beseeching  the  people  in  Christ's 
stead  to  be  reconciled  unto  God]    And  is  all  that  he 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


83 


says  from  man?  Is  it  a  proclamation  from  man,  when  he 
tells  them,  that  God  is  reconciled — -that  He  is  ready  to 
pardon — that  He  would  rather  they  would,  turn  to  him 
and  live?  When  he  tells  them  that  heaven's  gates  are 
opened  for  every  repenting  and  believing  sinner — and 
that  there  is  a  pure,  peaceful,  happy  home  for  all  the 
children  of  God]  Is  this  all  human?  Is  it  the  produc- 
tion of  an  uninspired  man?  Or  is  it  not  rather  the  pro- 
duction of  the  Spirit  of  God?  Is  it  not  divine  truth  that 
such  a  sermon  presents  to  the  people?  And  yet  Dr. 
Pressly  solemnly  protests  against  calling  it  a  divine 
composition,  and  would  have  us  to  believe  that  it  is  noth-^ 
ing  but  the  production  of  an  uninspired  man  !  Yerily  the 
Doctor  is  wide  frum  the  truth;  and  such  teaching  must 
have  a  very  pernicious  tendency.  But  is  it  not  remarka- 
ble coming  from  a  Professor's  chair,  and  that  too,  a  chair 
in  a  theological  institution!  It  is  indeed,  far  otherwise 
with  the  people  of  God,  when  they  assemble  in  the  courts 
of  His  house.  Their  language  is,  ''How  amiable  are 
thy  tabernacles,  O  Lord  of  hosts!"  Because  they  find  Him 
there;  there  he  speaks  to  them,  not  in  the  productions  of 
uninspired  men;  but  in  the  productions  of  His  own  Ho- 
ly Spiric.  By  divine  truth  contained  in  their  hymns, 
their  sermons  and  their  prayers,  they  are  edified  and 
comforted.  They  drink  the  healing  water  of  life  from 
the  crystal  fountain  of  divine  truth,  though  it  is  conveyed 
to  them  through  vessels  constructed  by  the  wisdom  of 
man.  And  what  matter  who  constructs  them,  when  they 
are  flowing  with  the  water  of  salvation,  brought  from  the 
pure  fountain  of  infallible  wisdom?  What  matter  who 
the  composer  may  be,  if  the  compositions  are  filled  with 
divine  truth;  the  truth  of  inspiration?  It  may  be  Rouse, 
or  Watts,  or  Doddridge,  or  Dr.  Pressly;  but  it  is  still  the 


84 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Lord's  truth  addressed  to  his  people:  His  own  voice 
comforting,  sustaining,  and  speaking  peace  to  their  souls; 
calling  upon  them  to  prepare,  and  come  up  hither,  that 
they  may  ever  drink,  from  the  living  streams  which  flow 
through  the  paradise  of  their  God  ! 


CHAPTER  IV. 


Authority  for  Using,  in  the  Worship  of  God,  Songs  Compo- 
sed BY  Uninspired  Men. 

We  have  seen,  that  Rouse's  paraphrase  of  David's 
Psalms  is  human  composure.  And  Watts'  Psalms  and 
Hymns  are  the  same.  And  all  the  Sicred  songs  we  have 
in  English  verse  are  the  same.  Because  no  inspired 
man  ever  wrote  any  song  in  English  verse.  All  such 
songs  are  the  workmanship  of  man,  though  the  suhject- 
matter  may  all  be  from  the  ^^pirit  of  God.  The  songs 
as  such,  i.  e.  as  compositions  in  English  verse,  have  men, 
and  only  men  for  their  author's.  As  English  ])oetical 
compositions  then,  they  are  all  the  compositions  of  unin- 
spired men:  And  there  is  no  other  kind  of  poetical 
composition  used  in  the  Church  of  Christ  at  the  present 
day.  Our  sacred  songs,  as  such,  have  all  been  prepared 
by  man;  while  the  subject-matter  of  them  may  all  have 
been  prepared  by  the  Spirit  of  ins|)iration. 

Having  no  Sacred  Songs  then,  but  those  composed  by 
uninspired  men,  the  question  arises:  Is  it  proper  to  use 
these  in  the  worship  of  Grod?  Df .  Pressly  maintains  it 
is  not;  though  his  constant  and  regular  practice  is,  to  use 
them!  Because  I  presume,  he  never,  in  all  his  life  sung 
a  songjthat  as  sucJi,  was  the  workmanship  of  an  inspired 
man.  They  are  all  in  the  Hebrew  language;  and  I  do 
not  think  he  ever  sung  any  Hebrew  composition:  T  know 
at  least  they  do  not  sing  it  in  his  congregation.  He  acts 
without  authority:  but  we  say  we  act  with  authority. — 
8 


86 


MORTON   ON  PSALMODY. 


He  calls  for  it;  and  we  reply:  "Praise  ye  the  Lord:  for 
it  is  good  to  sing  praises  unto  our  God — Sing  unto  the 
Lord  a  new  Song  and  his  praise  in  the  congregation  of 
the  Saints."  Now  it  is  admitted  that  these  injunctions 
are  binding  upon  us.  And  if  it  is  our  duty  to  sing  songs 
of  praise,  we  cannot  discharge  this  duty  unless  we  sing 
those  composed  by  uninspired  men;  because  we  have  no 
other  that  we  can  sing.  So  then,  if  it  is  our  duty  to  sing 
at  all,  it  is  our  duty  to  sing  songs  of  this  kind.  And  it 
has  always  been  so  in  the  Christian  Church.  The  inspi- 
red songs  of  the  Old  Testament  are  written  in  Hebrew; 
and  that  has  been  a  dead  language  to  her  ever  since  her 
first  existence.  She  might  translate  these  songs;  or 
paraphrase  these  songs:  or  draw  the  matter  of  her  songs 
from  them:  but  the  songs  themselves  she  could  not  use. 
Thus  it  was  with  the  Churches  of  Ephesus  and  Colosse: 
they  were  called  upon  to  sing  **psalms,  and  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs;"  and  the  songs  prepared  by  inspiration 
in  the  Old  Testament  they  could  not  sing;  because  the 
Hebrew  was  to  them  a  dead  language;  and  they  could 
not  sing  it  any  more  than  Dr.  Pressly  himself.  They 
might  draw  the  matter  of  their  songs  from  the  Hebrew 
songs:  but  the  Hebrew  songs  themselves,  prepared 
by  inspiration,  they  could  not  use.  Or,  as  the  Greek 
was  their  vernacular  tongue,  they  might  use  the  Greek 
translation  of  these  sorgs.  But  that  they  did  so,  is  not 
very  probable  as  this  translation  is  not  written  in  poetry 
at  all.  And  even  had  they  used  this,  it  would  not  have 
been  the  songs  prepared  by  inspiration.  The  subject- 
matter  may  have  been  the  same;  but  the  songs  would 
not  have  been  the  same.  The  Hebrew  songs  were  pre- 
pared by  inspired  men:  but  the  Greek  songs,  if  such 
they  are  called,  would  be  prepared  by  uninspired  men: 
hence,  as  songs,  they  would  still  be  the  productions  of 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


87 


uninspired  men.  The  Colossians  and  Ephesians  then 
were  authorized  to  sing  songs  of  this  kind;  aud  we  pre- 
sume the  authority  extends  to  us  also. 

But  that  we  may  see  the  force  of  this  passage  in  Col. 
3:  16,  let  us  examine  it  more  carefully.  It  reads  thus: 
**Let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell  in  you  richly,  in  all  wis- 
dom: teaching  and  admonishing  one  another  in  psalms 
and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  singing  with  grace  in 
your  hearts  to  the  Lord.'^ 

In  this  passage  there  are  two  duties  enjoined.  One  is, 
to  let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell  in  us  richly:  the  other  is 
to  teach  and  admonish  one  another.  If  then  we  are  to 
let  the  word  of  Christ  dwell  in  us,  we  oughf  to  know 
what  is  meant  by  the  *'Word  of  Christ.''  And  my  belief 
is,  that  by  it  the  Apostle  meant  the  doctrine  of  salvation 
through  Jesus  Christ,  as  it  was  then  preached  to  the 
Christian  Church:  and  that  he  did  not  mean  either  the 
Old  or  New  Testament.  Dr.  Baird  in  his  work  on  Psal- 
mody makes  this  very  clear  to  my  mind.  But  inasmuch 
as  this  doctrine  is  now  taught  in  the  Scriptures  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testaments;  when  we  let  them  dwell  in  us, 
this  doctrine  will  dwell  in  us  also.  And  there  is  no 
doubt,  that  the  word  of  God  is  the  word  of  Christ.  We 
shall  then  understand  the  phrase  in  this  signification. — 
And  this  will  preclude  all  controversy  on  this  point,  as 
Dr.  Pressly  maintains  that  this  is  its  proper  meaning. 
By  the  word  of  Christ  then,  we  understand  the  word  of 
Qodi  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.  And  this  word  it  is  our  duty  to  have  dwel- 
ling in  us  richly  in  all  wisdom.  Then  there  is  insepar- 
bly  connected  with  this  duty  another,  which  is  that  of 
teaching  and  admonishing  one  another  in  psalms  and 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  singing  with  grace  in  our 
hearts  to  the  Lord.    These  two  duties  we  say  are  insep- 


88  MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


arably  joined  togeiber,  in  this  passage:  and  that  from 
the  veiy  syntax  of  the  sentence.  Because  one  of  the 
duties  is  eiijoined  by  merely  using  the  participles — 
'^teaching — admonishing."  And  this  participial  clause 
would  have  no  meaning  if  it  stood  by  itself.  ''Teaching 
and  admonishing  one  another  in  psalms  and  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs,"  taken  by  itself  says  just  nothing.  It 
has  no  meaning:  it  affirms  nothing:  it  denies  nothing:  it 
enjoins  nothing.  It  cannot  make  full  sense  because  it  is 
no  sentence.  "A  sentence  is  such  an  assemblage  of 
words  as  makes  complete  sense."  And  hence  in  every 
sentence  there  must  be  a  verb:  because  there  can  be  no 
complete^sense  Avithnut  a  verb.  Were  you  to  talk  from 
morning  till  niii^ht  and  use  no  verbs  you  would  not  say 
anything  And  so  with  this  clause:  by  itself  it  says  noth- 
ing. Its  sense  and  its  very  existence  depends  upon  the 
other  clause  of  the  sentence — *'Let  the  word  of  Christ 
dwell  in  you."  In  this  passage  then,  there  are  not  two 
separate  and  in  lei)endent  duties  enjoined.  There  is  not 
the  duty  of  letting  the  word  dwell  in  us;  and  then  discon- 
nected from  this,  the  duty  of  teaching  and  admonishing. 
These  two  duties  are  iirseparably  united:  there  is  a  mu- 
tual dependence  beiween  them:  they  have  a  mutual 
bearing  upon  each  other.  And  when  we  ascertain  the 
connexion  between  them,  we  will  see  what  this  bearing  is. 

What  then,  is  the  nature  of  the  connexion  between 
the  two  clauses  of  this  sentence]  or  what  has  teaching 
and  admonishing  to  do  with  the  word  of  Christ?  Of  this 
I  have  seen  several  interpretations:  but  I  must  say,  that 
not  one  of  them  is  satisfactory  to  my  mind.  And  if  I 
differ  from  others  it  is  because  I  am  compelled  to  do  so, 
on  account  of  what  T  believe  to  be  the  truth.  The  duty 
enjoined  in  the  words — "teaching  and  admonishing  one 
another  in  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs" — let 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


89 


it  be  observed  is  a  reciprocal  duty,  all  Christians  are  to 
engage  in  it:  and  also  the  manner  of  performing  the  duty 
is — "singing/'  Some  interpretations  then  will  not  bear 
the  slightest  touch  of  scrutiny.  One  is;  that  it  enjoins 
upon  those  who  can  read,  to  instruct  those  who  cannot, 
by  reading  or  reciting  to  them  portions  of  the  Book  of 
Psalms.  But  this  would  not  be  a  mutual  exercise;  nor 
done  by  singing;  and  this  is  not  the  meaning.  Another 
is:  that  it  enjoins  upon  the  preacher  to  explain  the 
Psalm  to  the  people  before  singing.  But  this  would  not 
be  a  mutual  exercise,  nor  done  by  singing:  and  this  is 
not  the  meaning.  Another  is:  that  it  enjoins  upon  those 
who  compose  Psalms  and  Hymns,  **to  enrich  them  well 
from  the  woi^d  of  Christ,  or  with  the  important  doctrines 
of  the  Gospel  for  the  instruction  of  others.''  But  this 
woiald  not  be  a  mutual  exercise  nor  done  by  singing, 
and  this  is  not  the  meaning.  None  of  these  will  bear 
the  slightest  touch  of  examination.  A  more  plausible 
interpretation  is  this:  that  we  are  required  to  let  the 
word  of  Christ  dwell  in  us  richly,  that  we  may  be  qual- 
ified to  teach  and  admonish  one  another  in  psalms  and 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs.  But  though  this  is  the  gen- 
erally received  interpretation,  it  is  to  me  unsatisfactory. 
Because  I  do  not  see  the  relevancy  of  the  parts;  or  the 
necessity  of  the  first  duty  in  order  to  the  discharge  of  the 
second.  Why  must  we  have  the  word  of  Christ  dwel- 
ling in  us  richly,  in  order  that  we  may  teach  and  admon- 
ish one  another  by  singing  psalms  and  hymns  and  spir- 
itual songs'?  Could  we  not  sing  these  without  having  the 
word  of  Christ  dwelling  in  us  ricfily]  If  tlie  injunction 
was  to  compose  Psalms  and.  Hymns,  then  we  could  see 
the  necessity  of  having  the  word  dwelling  richly  in  us: 
but  the  injunction  is  not  to  make,  but  to  sing  them,  that 
by  singing  them  we  may  teach  and  admonish  one  another. 
8^ 


90 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Now  a  person  who  had  them  might  sing  them,  though  he 
had  never  seen  the  word  of  God.  And  heathens  con- 
verted to  Christianity,  while  they  had  not  the  Bible  in 
their  own  tongue  might  teach  and  admonish  one  anoth- 
er by  singing  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs, 
though  they  could  not  have  the  word  of  Christ  dwelling 
in  them  richly.  And  thus  we  see  the  discharge  of  the 
first  duty  is  not  essential  to  the  discharge  of  the  second: 
nor  do  I  believe  that  the  words  at  all  teach  that  it  is. 

My  chief  objection,  however,  to  the  interpretation  is 
this:  that  it  makes  the  first  duty  in  the  passage  the  subor- 
dinate duty;  and  the  second  duty  the  principal  one:  thus 
making  the  very  existence  of  the  first  dependent  upon 
the  second:  whereas  precisely  the  reverse  is  the  case. — 
The  interpretation  is  in  conflict  with  the  very  genius  of 
language.  For  the  genius  of  language  is  this:  that  when 
two  duties  are  enjoined  in  the  same  sentence,  the  one  by 
verbal  language,  and  the  other  by  participial  language, 
then  the  one  couched  in  verbal  language  is  the  principal 
duty,  and  the  one  in  participial  language  is  the  subordi- 
nate duty:  its  nature  and  existence  depends  upon  the 
other.  In  every  sentence  consisting  of  two  parts,  a  ver- 
bal and  a  participial,  the  verbal  clause  is  complete  in 
in  itself,  and  the  participial  clause  is  a  mere  appendage 
to  it.  It  matters  not  which  clause  may  be  first  in  or- 
der in  the  sentence;  this  does  not  change  the  relation- 
ship existing  between  them.  And  it  is  indeed  a  very 
important  matter  to  know  the  nature  of  the  connec- 
tion between  the  parts;  or  what  relation  the  participial 
clause  bears  to  the  verbal  clause.  And  I  apprehend 
the  relation  is  exegetical.  The  participial  clause  is  al. 
ways  explanatory  of  the  verbal  clause.  If  the  verbal 
clause  contains  merely  a  proposition,  then  the  participial 
clause  is  explanatory  of  that  proposition.    If  the  verbal 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


91 


clause  enjoins  a  duty,  then  the  other  clause  explains 
either  the  nature  of  that  duty;  or  the  manner  in  which 
that  duty  may  be  discharged;  or  perhaps  comprehends 
both.  For  the  exemplification  of  the  whole  matter  let 
us  take  some  sentences. — Abstaining  from  intemperance f 
taking  exercise,  and  rising  early; — Now  it  is  obvious 
that  these  words  do  not  make  complete  sense:  there  is 
something  wanting:  and  it  is  a  verbal  clause,  to  give 
meaning  to  this  participial  clause.  Connect  with  it  these 
words — secure  to  yourselves  good  health — and  then  you 
have  sense.  Or  you  may  invert  the  clauses  and  it  still 
expresses  the  same  thing.  Secure  to  yourselves  good 
health:  abstaining  from  intemperance,  taking  exercise, 
and  rising  early.  And  the  participial  clause  merely  ex- 
plains the  manner  in  v/hich  you  are  to  secure  good 
health — that  is,  it  explains  the  mode  of  doing  what  is 
enjoined  in  the  verbal  clause.  The  farmer  says — John, 
making  a  deep  furrow,  turning  up  the  sub-soil,  and  throw- 
ing the  vegetation  under: — It  is  obvious  the  farmer  has 
not  by  these  words  enjoined  anything  upon  John:  but 
when  John  hears  them  he  knows  the  farmer  is  going  to 
say  something.  And  it  is; — plough  the  land  well: — The 
farmer  enjoins  upon  iiim  a  duty;  and  tells  him  how  to  per- 
form it;  or  what  he  means  by  the  duty, — "John,  plough 
the  land  well:  making  a  deep  furrow,  turning  up  the  sub- 
soil, and  throiving  the  vegetation  under."  The  particip- 
ial clause  does  not  enjoin  a  separate  and  independent 
duty:  but  is  merely  explanatory  of  what  is  contained  in 
the  verbal  clause. 

The  writings  of  the  Apostle  Paul  abound  with  senten- 
ces of  this  kind.  And  any  man  that  carefully  examines 
will  find,  that  the  participial  clause  of  such  sentences, 
is  always  exegetical  of  the  verbal  clause.  But  observe: 
verbs  and  participles  may  both  be  found  in  the  same 


92 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


sentence,  while  the  one  is  not  explanatory  of  the  other: 
because  both  are  explanatory  of  the  principal  verb 
somewhere  else  in  the  sentence.  We  have  an  instance  of 
this  kind  in  Eph  6:  14 — 20.  These  seven  verses  consti- 
tute but  one  sentence  in  the  original  though  they  are 
punctuated  as  two  in  the  translation.  The  principal  du- 
ty is  enjoined  at  the  beginning  of  the  14th  verse.  It  is 
— ''Stand"— -and  all  that  follows  is  explanatory  of  how 
this  is  to  be  done- — having  the  loins  girt — having  on  the 
breastplate — having  the  feet  shod — taking  the  shield — 
take  the  helmet — praying  always — and  watching  there- 
unto:— 'Spraying''  is  not  explanatory  of,  "take  the  hel- 
met;" because  both  are  explanatoiy  of  "stand"  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sentence.  And  even  praying  for  all 
saints;  and  f)r  the  Apostle,  is  apart  of  the  mode  prescri- 
bed for  discharging  the  duty — Stand, 

Again:  though  a  duty  enjoined  by  participral  language, 
is  always  subordinate  to  a  principal  duty,  yet  it  may  be 
principal  to  a  third  duty,  which  is  subordinate  to  itself. 
We  have  a  case  of  this  kind  in  Col.  ^:  16.  "Let  the 
word  of  Christ  dwell  in  you,"  this  is  the  principal  duty 
"Teaching  and  admonishing  one  another,"  is  subordinate 
to  this:  and  then  singing     subordinate  to  teaching,  etc. 

Again:  participial  language  may  be  explanatory  of 
what  is  contained  in  substantives;  as  in  Eph.  4:  2,  3. 
"Walk  worthy  of  the  vocation  wherewith  ye  are  called. 
With  all  lowliness,  and  meekness;  with  long-suffering^ 
forbearing  one  another  in  love.  Endeavoring  to  keep  the 
unity  of  the  Spirit  in  the  bond  of  peace."  Here  endeav- 
oring may  be  explanatory  of  forbearing;  and  forbearing 
may  be  explanatory  of  long-suffering:  yet  they  all  go  to 
explain  the  nature  of  the  principal  duly;  or  the  manner 
which  it  is  to  be  performed — that  is  the  duty  of  walking 
worthy  of  their  vocation.    Thus  we  find  that  participial 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


93 


language  is  always  explanatory — it  never  of  itself  en- 
joins an  independent  duty. 

Let  us  examine  a  few  more  passages,  that  we  may  see 
the  truth  of  the  position.  Eph.  5:  18,  the  duty  enjoined 
is,  "Be  filled  with  the  Spirit;"  and  all  that  is  said  to  the 
close  of  the  25th  verse  is  explanatory  of  the  mode  in 
which  this  is  to  be  done.  "Be  filled  with  the  Spirit," — 
that  is  with  the  graces  of  ihe  Spirit,  or  cultivate  such  a 
frame  of  heart,  that  the  Spirit  will  take  up  his  abode  with 
you,  and  dwell  in  you.  And  how  shall  this  be  done*? — 
By  speaking  to  yourselves  in  psalms  and  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs:  hj  singing  and  making  melody:  hj  giv- 
ing thanks:  and  submitting  yourselves  one  to  another. 
All  this  describes  the  mode  of  discharging  the  duty  of 
being  filled  with  the  Spirit.  Phi.  1:  2,  3.  I  thank  my 
God  upon  every  remembrance  of  you."  And  how  does 
he  do  it]  "M<2Z:m^  request  with  joy."  Phi.  2:  15.  "Ye 
shine  as  lights  in  the  world."  How]  holding  forth  the 
word  of  life."  Phi.  3:  13.  ^'Forgetting  those  things 
which  are  behind;  and  reaching  forth  unto  those  things 
which  are  before,  I  press  toward  the  mark."  Col.  1:  28. 
"Whom  we  preach."  How?  warning  every  man,  and 
teaching  every  man."  We  see  that  the  participial  clau- 
ses are  always  explanatory.  Col.  3:  12.  "Put  on  there- 
fore as  the  elect  of  God,  holy  and  beloved,  bowels  of 
mercies,  kindness,  humbleness  of  mind,  meekness,  long- 
suffering."  And  how  are  we  to  cultivate  these  Chris- 
tian graces]  By  ''forbearing  one  another,  and  forgiving 
one  another."  Col.  3:  16.  "Let  the  word  of  Christ 
dwell  in  you  richly,  in  all  wisdom,"  And  how  shall  this 
be  done]  By  "teaching  and  admonishing  one  another 
in  psalms,  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  singing  with 
grace  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord."  Be  constant  and 
diligent  in  this  practice  of  teaching  and  admonishing 


94 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY 


one  another  in  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs, 
and  the  result  will  be;  that  you  will  have  the  word  of 
Christ  dwelling  in  you  richly  in  all  wisdom. 

This  then,  I  take  to  be  the  correct  exposition  of  the 
passage.  And  I  have  gone  into  the  examination,  and 
explanation  at  some  length,  for  the  purpose  of  finding 
and  setting  forth  the  truth.  Because  if  my  heart  does 
not  deceive  me,  it  is  the  truth  I  desire  and  nothing  else. 
And  I  have  given  this  interpretation  of  the  passage  be- 
cause I  believe  it  to  be  the  true  one,  without  any  regard 
to  the  bearing  it  may  have  upon  the  subject  of  Psalmody. 
If  this  interpretation  were  to  deprive  me  of  any  support, 
from  this  passage,  to  the  cause  I  maintain,  yet  I  dare 
not  withhold  it.  It  is  the  truth  we  want.  Let  us  know 
the  truth,  and  the  truth  shall  make  us  free.  The  cause 
of  truth  never  suffered  by  the  discovery  or  application 
of  truth.  And  the  fact  of  the  matter  is,  that  when  we 
have  the  true  interpretation  of  this  passage,  we  see  more 
clearly  its  important  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  Psalm- 
ody. For  we  see  that  it  authorized  the  CoUosians,  and 
that  it  authorizes  us  to  use  psalms,  and  hymns,  and 
spiritual  songs,  composed  by  uninspired  men;  because 
it  enjoins  the  use  of  songs  drawn  from  the  word  of  God; 
the  New  Testament  as  well  as  the  Old.  And  there  be- 
ing in  the  New  Testament  no  songs  ready  for  our  use, 
those  drawn  from  it  must  be  the  compositions  of  unin- 
spired men.  But  how  does  it  enjoin  the  use  of  songs 
drawn  from  the  whole  word  of  God?  Because  it  says, 
that  by  the  use  of  the  songs  we  make  ourselves  familiar 
with  the  whole  word  of  God.  And  if  the  use  of  them 
makes  us  familiar  with  the  whole  word,  they  must  be 
drawn  from  the  whole  word.  If  the  songs  embodied 
only  ^  part,  their  use  could  never  make  us  familiar  with 
the  whole.    The  use  of  a  part  of  th.e  Bible  could  never 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


95 


make  us  familiar  with  the  whole  Bible.    The  use  of  the 
first,  second,  and  third  chapters  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans could  never  make  us  familiar  with  the  whole  Epis- 
tle.   Teaching  and  admonishing  one  another  in  the  first 
psalm,  and  the  second  psalm,  and  the  third  psalm,  would 
never  make  us  familiar  with  the  whole  book  of  Psalms. 
And    so   teaching  and   admonishing  one    another  in 
psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  taken  from  the 
book  of  Psalms,  could  never  make  us  familiar  with  some 
doctrines,  and  the  historical  facts  of  the  New  Testament. 
How  long  might  we  use  the  Psalms  without  knowing, 
that  the  man  Christ  Jesus  is  the  one  mediator  between 
God  and  men]    Just  forever.    When  would  we  learn 
by  using  the  Psalms  that  this  same  Jesus,  whom  the  Jews 
crucified,  is  both  Lord  and   Christ?    Never.  When 
could  we  learn  from  the  Psalms,  that  the  Son  of  Joseph 
and  Mary  attested  his  Messiahship  by  raising  Lazarus 
from  the  dead]    How  long  would  it  take  us  to  learn 
from  the  book  of  Psalms,  that  the  same  night  in  which 
Jesus  was  betrayed  he  took  bread  and  blessed,  and 
break,  and  gave  to  his  disciples  saying,  take,  eat,  this  is 
my  body  broken  for  you,  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me 
. — that  is,  that  he  instituted  the  Lord's  Supper?  Why 
these  precious  truths  of  our  holy  religion  we  could  never 
learn  from  the  book  of  Psalms.    By  the  use  of  the 
Psalms  we  could  never  learn,  that  when  the  Messiah 
should  be  born,  his  name  would  be  called  Jesus,  Nei- 
ther could  we  learn  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  the  very- 
Christ,  or  Messiah,  promised  in  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures.   Nor  could  we  ever  know  that  when  the  man 
Jesus  was  baptized,  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  upon  him 
like  a  dove;  and  that  God  the  Father  by  an  audible 
voice  from  heaven  testified  that  this  man  was  the  Mes- 
siah, saying,  "This  is  my  beloved  son  in  whom  I  am  well 


96 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


pleased/'  And  by  the  use  of  the  Psalms,  we  could 
never  know,  that  the  prophecy  contained  in  the  41st 
Psalm  was  fulfilled  by  Judas  betraying  Jesus;  nor  that 
the  prophecies  contained  in  the  69th  and  109th  Psalms 
were  fulfilled  in  the  punishment  of  Judas.  Nor  that  the 
prophecy  contained  in  the  16th  Psalm  was  fulfilled  in 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus.  We  could  never  know  from 
the  Psalms  this  all  important  fact^  that  Jesus  rose  from 
the  dead,  and  that  the  Apostles  were  appointed  as  wit- 
nessss  of  this  fact,  and  that  this  fact  lies  at  the  very  foun- 
dation of  Christianity.  Nor  could  we  know  that  accord- 
ing to  the  promise  of  Jesus  the  Holy  Ghost  was  poured 
out  on  the  day  of  Penticost,  Nor  could  we  ever  learn 
from  the  Psalms,  that  the  man  who  journeyed  from  place 
to  place  through  the  land  of  Judea,  on  errands  of  mercy, 
weak  and  weary,  feeble  and  despised,  and  who  was  at 
last  killed  and  buried — that  this  very  same  man  is  now 
exalted  to  the  right  hand  of  God,  a  Prince  and  a  Saviour 
to  give  repentance  and  the  remission  of  sins,  O  no! 
these  and  many  other  such  fundamentals  of  Christianity 
can  never  be  learned  from  the  book  of  Psalms.  And 
the  undeniable  fact  is  this,  that  if  our  Psalmody  affords 
to  us  any  aid  in  becoming  familiar  with  these  things, 
they  must  be  embodied  in  our  own  Psalmody.  If  our 
Psalmody  does  not  contain  them,  we  can  never  learn 
them  from  it.  And  if  our  Psalmody  does  contain  them, 
that  Psalmody  must  be  drawn  from  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures;  because  they  are  nowhere  else  revealed.  I 
am  well  aware,  that  the  Psalms  contain  a  great  deal 
concerning  the  Messiah;  but  they  do  not  tell  us  who  the 
Messiah  is;  they  do  not  tell  us  that  Jesus  who  was  born 
of  Mary,  is  that  Messiah;  they  do  not  tell  us,  that  all 
that  is  contained  in  the  Psalms  concerning  the  Messiah, 
was  fulfilled  in  the  man  Christ  Jesus.    True,  indeed, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


97 


there  ai^e  some  who  profess  to  be  so  clear-sighted  that 
they  can  find  in  the  Psalms  everything  concerning  Je- 
sus of  Nazareth — so  clear-sighted,  that  they  can  find 
what  is  not  there  at  all — so  clear-sighted  that  they  can 
prove  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  perfectly  useless  ! 
Far  more  clear-sighted  than  the  Evangelist  John:  for  in 
speaking  of  his  Gospel,  he  says;  ^'These  are  written, 
that  ye  might  believe  that  Jesus  is  tJie  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God;  and  that  believing  ye  might  have  life  through  his 
name."  John  thought  the  New  Testament  Scriptures 
were  necessary,  in  order  to  know,  that  Jesus  was  the 
Christ.  But  these  men  know  better:  they  can  find  out 
all  from  the  Book  of  Psalms.  And  according  to  their 
views  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  are  just  about  as 
good  as  useless,  But  it  is  only  when  they  are  on 
Psahnody,  that  they  make  these  wonderful  discoveries! 
The  truth,  however,  is,  that  God  in  his  infinite  wisdom 
and  goodness  has  given  us  the  New  Testament  Scrip- 
tures, to  teach  us  what  we  could  never  learn  from  the 
book  of  Psalms;  and  hence  the  use  of  these  Psalms 
could  never  teach  us  these  things.  We  must  have  Psalms 
in  which  they  are  before  we  can  learn  them  from  our 
Psalms.  And  therefore  we  must  have  Psalms  embody- 
ing the  revelations  of  the  New  Testament.  And  these 
are  the  kind  of  psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs 
the  Apostle  requires  us  to  sing.  And  those  who  refuse 
to  teach  and  admonish  one  another  in  the  use  of  such 
songs  of  praise,  are  living  in  constant  neglect  of  their 
duty — disobeying  this  precept  of  the  Gospel:  and  in 
their  Psalmody  are  refusing  to  "confess,  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  come  in  the  flesh.''  As  far  as  their  Psalmody  is  con- 
cerned, they  are  acting  just  like  the  unbelieving  Jews, 
who  refuse  to  acknowledge  that  the  Messiah  has  yet 
come.  They  and  these  Jews  both  use  the  same  Psal- 
9 


98 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


mody;  and  in  their  Psalmody  both  refuse  to  confess  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  Though  they  profess 
to  be  Christians,  yet  in  this  part  of  their  worship  they 
rank  themselves  with  Jews;  because  they  use  no  Psal- 
mody, but  that  which  the  Jews  can  consistently  use,  while 
still  in  their  unbelief.  And  Jews,  who  hate  Jesus,  could 
cordially  unite  with  them,  when  singing  praises  in  the 
family,  or  in  the  public  congregation.  But  Jews  who 
hate  Jesus  could  not  unite  in  singing  the  psalms  and 
hymns,  and  spiritual  songs  commended  by  the  Apostle, 
and  sung  by  the  Collossians  and  Ephesians:  Psalms  em- 
bodying the  revelations  of  the  New  Testament:  Psalms 
in  which  they  spoke  of  Jesus — maintaining  that  he  was 
the  Messiah — that  he  was  the  promised  Saviour — that  he 
was  a  divine  person — that  he  was  the  Son  of  God — that 
Jesus  was  their  Friend — their  Hope,  their  Saviour,  their 
All.  And  by  the  use  of  which  the  Apostle  said,  they 
would  have  the  word  of  Christ  dwelling  in  them  richly 
in  all  wisdom.  And  beyond  all  controversy,  here  is  just 
the  plain  truth  of  the  matter:  the  Apostle  says,  that  by 
using  psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs,  we  shall 
make  ourselves  acquainted  with  the  word  of  God — with 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures — and  hence,  these  songs 
must  be  drawn  from  these  Scriptures.  There  is  posi- 
tively no  other  way  for  it—man^s  ingenuity  and  sophistry 
can  never  twist  it  into  any  thing  else.  They  may  give  a 
false  interpretation  and  corrupt  the  word  of  God:  but  the 
plain  truth  of  the  passage  remains  unchangeably  the 
same. 

The  conclusion  at  which  we  have  arrived  is:  that  when 
the  Apostle  enjoins  the  use  of  psalms,  and  hymns,  and 
spiritual  songs,  he  means  songs  drawn  from  the  word  of 
God;  and  embodying  especially  what  is  peculiar  to  the 
Christian  dispensation.    And  when  we  examine  the  terms 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


99 


used,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  is  nothing  in  their  mean- 
ing which  in  the  least  conflicts  with  this  conclusion:  but 
rather  that  the  meaning  of  the  terms  tends  to  corroborate 
what  we  have  said.    The  first  term  used  is  Psalms.  And 
what  does  this  term  designate]    Perhaps  it  designates 
Psalms  of  David;  but  this  is  altogether  uncertain,  as  there 
is  nothing  in  the  term  itself  to  show  that  it  does.    I  have 
been  wont  to  think,  that  by  this  term  here,  the  Psalms  of 
David  are  meant:  but  then  I  was  guided  more  by  sound 
than  by  information:  just  because  it  was  usual  with  me, 
in  common  with  others,  to  apply  this  term  to  David's 
Psalms  and  to  nothing  else:  never  reflecting,  that  though 
this  may  be  the  common  signification  of  the  term  now,  it 
may  have  been  far  otherwise  in  the  days  of  the  Apostle. 
We  have  been  accustomed  to  think,  that  the  term  Psalms 
never  meant  any  thing  but  the  Psalms  of  David.    But  in 
this  we  are  much  mistaken.    The  term  has  come  from 
the  Greeks;  and  they  used  it  hundreds  of  years  before 
they  knew  there  were  any  Psalms  of  David.    They  had 
Pmo,  to  touch;  and  from  that  Psallo,  to  touch,  or  move 
with  the  fingers;  to  pluck  the  hair;  to  twitch;  to  twang  a 
carpenter's  line,  or  bow-string;  and  then  to  strike  the 
strings  of  a  musical  instrument.    And  hence  their  Psal- 
mos  signified  a  musical-stringed-instrument,  or  the  tune 
performed  on  it,  or  any  burst  or  strain  of  music.  By 
Psalm,  then,  is  properly  meant  a  song  sung  to  a  musical 
instrument.    It  was  this  kind  of  songs,  that  the  Greeks 
called  Psalms.    Then  when  David's  songs  were  transla- 
ted from  Hebrew  into  Greek  they  were  called  Psalms; 
because  they  had  always  been  sung  to  musical  instru- 
ments in  the  Temple  worship.    Their  being  sung  to  mu- 
sical instruments  is  the  reason  why  they  were  called 
Psalms,    This  is  the  title  of  the  Book,  and  the  word  is 
found  also  in  the  titles  of  many  Psalms.    In  the  title  of 


100 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


the  4th  Psalm  it  signifies  a  musical  instrument;  because 
it  is  put  for  Neginoth  in  the  Hebrew.  Now,  as  songs 
composed  by  Greek  Pagans,  were  called  Psalms;  so 
songs  composed  by  Greek  Christians  may  have  been  call- 
ed Psalms  by  the  Apostle  Paul.  The  term  itself  affords 
to  us  no  information  whatever,  as  to  what  songs  he  meant. 

The  next  term  in  the  text  is  hymns.  This  also  is  from 
the  Greeks.  They  used  it  seven  or  eight  hundred  years 
before  the  days  of  the  Apostle:  and  hence  many  hun- 
dreds of  years  before  they  knew  there  were  any  Psalms 
of  David.  The  term  comes  from  Udeo,  to  tell;  to  relate: 
and  then  to  relate  something  of  somebody;  to  speak  in 
praise  of  some  one.  Hence,  their  Humnos  designates 
a  song  of  praise:  a  song  in  which  they  praised  their 
gods  and  heroes.  When  David's  Psalms  were  trans- 
lated into  Greek  they  were  not  called  hymns.  Nor  is  the 
term  used  as  the  title  of  any  Psalm  in  the  whole  collec- 
tion. It  occurs  in  the  titles  of  six  Psalms;  and  has  re- 
spect to  the  mode  of  conducting  the  music:  but  is  not 
descriptive  of  the  Psalm  at  all.  Hymns  then  is  not  the 
title  of  the  Greek  Psalms:  neither  is  it  the  title  of  any 
one  single  Psalm.  There  is  no  reason  therefore,  to  sup- 
pose, that  by  this  term  the  Apostle  meant  the  Psalms 
of  David.  Because  the  term  is  appropriate  to  any  song 
of  praise  to  God,  or  to  Jesus  Christ  by  whomsoever  it 
may  have  been  composed. 

The  next  term  is  song;  this  too  is  of  Greek  derivation. 
It  is  from  Aeido,  to  sing.  It  signifies  any  common  song, 
or  lay,  or  ditty:  anything  composed  to  be  sung  without 
reference  to  a  musicial  instrument;  nor  yet  having  for 
its  object  the  praise  of  any  one.  This  also  was  used  by 
the  Greeks  hundreds  of  years  before  they  had  any 
knowledge  of  David's  Psalms.  But  when  the  Psalms 
were  translated  into  Greek  this  term  was  employed  as 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


101 


he  title  of  twenty  five  of  them.  It  is  found  in  some 
other  titles  but  not  as  a  title.  The  Apostle  however, 
does  not  say  Song  merely,  but  Spiritual  So?ig;  a  phrase 
which  is  not  fouud  in  any  title  of  the  whole  book  ot 
Psalms.  He  obviously  used  the  word  Spiritual,  to 
teach  that  he  did  not  mean,  such  light,  trifling  wan- 
ton songs  as  were  common  among  the  Greeks;  but 
songs  composed  on  spiritual  subjects.  If  the  Apostle 
had  been  speaking  of  David's  Psalms,  the  epithet  Spir- 
itual, would  have  been  useless.  If,  as  Dr.  Pressly 
would  have  it,  the  people  were  in  the  practice  of  sing- 
ing David's  Psalms,  and  nothing  else;  and  if  they  under- 
stood the  Apostle  as  referring  to  these  Psalms,  might 
they  not  well  ask;  what  is  the  use  of  calling  them  Spirit- 
ual  ?  does  not  every  one  know  that  they  are  Spiritual 
without  designating  them  in  this  manner  1  Were  you  to 
tell  the  farmer  to  use  for  feed  land-grown  oats,  might 
he  not  well  ask,  what  do  you  mean?  what  is  the  use  of 
calling  them  land-grown?  are  not  all  oats  of  this  descrip- 
tion?  And' so  they  might  well  ask;  what  is  the  use  of 
telling  us  to  sing  David's  Spiritual  songs;  for  whoever 
heard  of  any  other  kind?  And  suppose  you  would  ex- 
hort a  man,  to  read  the  Scriptures,  and  the  Bible,  and 
the  Spiritual  word  of  God,  would  he  not  think  it  a 
queer  exhortation?  And  especially  would  he  say: — 
What  does  the  man  mean  by  Spiritual  word  of  God? 
who  ever  heard  of  a  temporal  word  of  God?  And  just 
so  in  the  other  case:  What  does  the  man  mean  by  spir- 
itual Psalms  of  David?  for  who  ever  heard  of  temporal 
Psalms  of  David?  But  Dr.  Pressly  by  his  enlightening 
touch  removes  the  difficulty:  for  he  says  these  songs  of 
David  are  called  spiritual,  just  because  they  are  *' wor- 
thy."   And  according  to  this  there  are  some  of  David's 

Psalms  not  worthy  to  be  called  spiritual.    Those  desif? 

9*  ° 


102 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


nated  by  the  term  hymns  are  not  called  spiritual:  why! 
because  they  are  not  worthy.  Those  designated  by  the 
term  ^;>5<2Zm5  are  not  called  spiritual:  why]  because  they 
are  not  worthy.  Obviously  if  the  Apostle  by  all  these 
terms  meant  Psalms  of  David,  and  considered  them  all 
equally  worthy,  he  ought  to  have  said  sj)iritual  psalms, 
and  spiritual  hymns;  as  well  as  spiritual  songs.  If  the 
songs  must  be  called  spiritual  because  they  are  worthy, 
then  if  the  others  are  w^orthy  they  ought  to  be  called 
spiritual  too.  According  to  the  Doctor's  explanation, 
then,  all  that  the  Apostle  designates  by  the  terms;  psalms ^ 
hymns;  are  not  worthy  to  be  called  Spiritual,  And  then 
I  would  be  ready  to  think  they  are  little  better  than 
*'human  composure.''  And  the  Doctor  sings  them  too! 
O  yes!  but  what  of  that!  Should  I  not  recollect,  that 
they  have  been  spiritualized  in  passing  through  the 
hands  of  Rouse? 

We  have  seen,  then,  that  the  terms — psalms ^  hymns, 
'^firitual  songs— h?(Ne  nothing  in  them  that  limits  their 
Tjoeaning  to  the  book  of  Psalms.  They  may  be  used  in 
speaking  of  any  sacred  poetical  compositions:  and  hence 
their  meaning  does  not  militate  against  our  conclusion: 
that  these  "psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs," 
are  to  be  drawn  from  the  whole  word  of  God. 

And  there  is  another  important  consideration  tending 
to  prove,  that  the  Apostle  did  not  mean  the  book  of 
Psalms  by  these  terms.  It  is:  that  this  was  not  the  usual 
mode  of  calling  the  book  of  Psalms.  We  have  reason 
to  believe,  that  that  Book  was  never  spoken  of  in  this 
way.  It  was  called  the  '*book  of  Psalms,"  or  *'the  Psalms;" 
but  never  called  "the  psalms,  and  ihymns  and  spiritual 
songs."  The  Saviour  speaks  of  it  twice  and  calls  it, 
«ahe  Psalms"  and  "the  Book  of  Psalms,"  Lu.  20:  42.  24: 
44.    The  Apostle  Peter  calls  it  **the  Book  of  Psalms," 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


103 


Ac.  1:  20.  The  Apostle  Paul  says,  "in  the  2d  Psalm," 
Ac.  13:  33.  He  does  not  say:  *'in  the  2d  of  the  psalms 
and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs."  No  indeed!  For  if  he 
had  said  so  the  people  would  not  have  known  what  he 
meant:  because  the  Book  of  Psalms  was  never  designa- 
ted in  this  way.  It  never  had  been  the  custom,  to  call 
this  Book — ''psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs," — 
it  was  not  then  the  custom — nor  has  it  ever  yet  been  the 
custom.  Dr.  Pressly  indeed,  tries  to  establish  this  cus- 
tom, but  I  do  not  think  he  will  succeed.  He  adopts  it 
very  extensively  in  his  work  on  Psalmody.  His  very 
general  practice  is,  to  call  the  Book  of  Psalms— *'psalms, 
and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs."  To  suit  his  purpose 
he  has  to  adopt  a  phraseology  entirely  different  from  that 
of  Christ  and  his  Apostles.  And  if  the  Doctor  had  ap- 
peared among  them,  and  used  his  phraseology,  they 
would  have  looked  at  him  perfectly  astonished  !  They 
might  have  supposed,  that  he  had  just  come  down  from 
the  moon;  because  he  was  so  ignorant  of  the  common 
way  of  naming  the  book  of  Psalms!  But  then  the  Doc- 
tor has  a  design  in  adopting  his  new  phraseology.  He 
applies  these  terms  to  the  Book  of  Psalms,  in  order  to 
make  the  impression  that  the  Apostle  applied  them  in 
the  same  way.  But  it  does  not  follow,  that  the  Apostle 
meant  the  book  of  Psalms  by  these  terms,  because  Dr. 
Pressly  means  so.  If  the  Doctor  always  calls  his  boots, 
shoes — it  does  not  follow,  that  the  boot-maker  called  them 
shoes.  And  were  the  Doctor  never  to  call  them  any 
thing  but  shoes,  that  would  never  prove  that  the  other 
called  them  so.  But  by  persevering  in  this  practice,  the 
Doctor  might  make  the  impression  on  his  children,  that 
it  had  always  been  customary  to  call  boots — shoes.  And 
then  the  children  would  conclude  that  the  term  shoes 
always  meant  boots.    It  is  at  this  the  Doctor  aims  by  his 


104 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


new  phraseology:  he  would  have  his  people  to  believe, 
that  the  terms,  "psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs," 
always  designated  the  book  of  Psalms,  and  to  awaken  in 
them  this  belief,  lie  calls  the  Book  by  these  terms. — 
But  is  it  not  laughable,  "or  something  worse,"  to  see  a 
man  resorting  to  such  schemes  to  maintain  his  causel 

This  text  of  Scripture  is  very  annoying  to  Psalmon- 
ites,  and  how  to  dispose  of  it  requires  all  their  ingenu- 
ity. If  the  Apostle  had  only  left  it  out  of  his  writings 
it  would  have  saved  them  a  great  deal  of  trouble.  Dr. 
Pressly  obviously  felt  the  difficulty;  and  he  has  to  make 
a  desperate  effort  to  surmount  it.  He  says,  however, 
that  he  is  going  to  "weigh  the  reasons  in  the  balances  of 
the  sanctuary.'*  I  suppose  he  uses  this  language  to 
make  the  impression,  that  he  is  very  grave,  and  very 
honest,  and  very  impartial;  and  that  he  will  treat  the 
subject  with  the  utmost  truth  and  fairness.  This  "weigh- 
ing in  the  balances,"  seems  to  be  a  favorite  expression 
with  him,  as  he  uses  it  often.  But  any  man  who  impar- 
tially examines  the  results  of  the  Doctor's  weighing  will 
soon  come  to  the  conclusion,  that  his  so-called  "balances 
of  the  sanctuary,"  must  be  out  of  repair — rusty;  or  that 
the  Doctor  has  actually  been  tampering  with  them;  so 
that  they  may  always  turn  in  his  favor.  He  takes  up  the 
greater  part  of  two  chapters  with  the  hopeless  work  of 
setting  aside  the  authority  of  this  passage.  And  he  has 
it  paraded  on  the  title  page  of  his  book,  that  he  has  giv- 
en a  "critical  analysis"  of  Col.  3:  16,  17.  And  such  a 
critical  analysis!  Time  would  fail  to  point  out  the  mer- 
its and  beauties  thereof.  But  all  ye  connoisseurs  of 
criticism  see  that  you  fail  not,  to  secure  for  yourselves 
the  Doctor's  work  on  Psalmody;  and  turn  to  his  "crit- 
ical analysis,"  and  summoning  all  your  powers  of  intel- 
lect for  the  enjoyment  of  something  profound,  examine 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


105 


it  with  care — ^but  I  exhort  ye  not  to  laugh!  And  then 
too  it  is  just  from  the  Doctor's  hand — direct  from  the 
wonderful  philological  chair — coming  from  the  very 
fountain  of  Biblical  science — ^and  sent  forth  by  the  chief 
Rabbi  of  that  notable  School!  It  must  be  remarkable! 
— and  it  is!  All  who  want  to  have  a  curiosity  in  criti- 
cism— get  it!  Happy  youth!  who  resort  to  that  School! 
When  the  Master  is  so  profound  in  Biblical  criticism, 
doubtless  they  will  all  be  much  distinguished  in  this  de- 
partment of  sacred  learning! 

But  then,  as  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Doctor  sets 
aside  the  argument  contained  in  the  passage  is  this, — 
by  subverting  the  principles  of  language — by  misinter- 
preting the  word  of  God — by  wrong  statements  respect- 
ing the  titles  of  the  Psalms — and  by  sophistical  reason- 
ing. 

He  subverts  the  principles  of  language,  by  represent- 
ing the  participial  clause  of  the  verse  as  having  no  con- 
nection with,  and  as  independent  of,  the  verbal  clause. 
He  does  this  to  make  appear,  that  teaching  in  psalms 
and  hymns  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  word  of  Christ. 
On  p.  36,  we  find  the  following  language:  ^'It  is  undoubt- 
edly the  will  of  God  ,  that  the  precious  truths  of  the  Gos- 
pel should  dwell  richly  in  the  hearts  of  all  true  believ- 
ers, and  that  they  should  sing  * 'psalms  and  hymns  and 
songs,"  in  the  worship  of  God.  But  we  are  inquiring 
after  authority,  not  to  sing^  but  to  make  psalms  and  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs.  And  on  this  point  this  passage  of 
the  word  of  God  is  utterly  silent.'*  It  is  seen  here,  that 
he  represents  the  two  clauses  of  the  verse  as  entirely 
disconnected  and  independent  of  each  other.  Because 
he  represents  them  as  containing  two  separate  and  dis- 
tinct duties,  between  which  there  exists  no  relationship 
whatever.    And  again:  on  p.  31,  he  says,  **Why,  my 


106 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


venerable  Father,  will  you  allow  me  to  say,  that  this  pre- 
cept, which  you  represent  as  so  full  and  clear,  does  not 
utter  one  syllable  in  relation  to  the  point  in  controversy. 
There  is  no  dispute  as  to  our  obligation  to  let  the  word 
of  Christ  dwell  in  us  richly;  none,  as  to  the  duty  of 
teaching  and  admonishing  one  another,  as  we  may  be 
able;  none,  as  to  the  propriety  of  singing  psalms  and 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs.  All  this  is  fully  and  clearly 
revealed,  and  all  this  we  firmly  believe." — How  mani- 
fest it  is  here,  that  he  makes  the  verse  to  contain  three 
separate  and  independent  duties.  In  order  to  show  that 
teaching  and  singing,  have  nothing  to  do  with  letting  the 
vrord  of  Christ  dwell  in  us  richly.  He  makes  participial 
language  to  contain  an  affirmation,  which  is  contrary  to 
the  principles  of  all  language.  He  teaches  that  a  man 
may  enjoin  a  duty  without  using  a  verb  at  all;  a  thing 
which  is  utterly  impossible.  He  teaches  that  there  is  no 
difference  between  a  participle  and  a  verb — that  in  lan- 
guage they  both  have  the  same  meaning;  and  may  be 
used  in  precisely  the  same  way!  And  in  this  manner  he 
carefully  keeps  out  of  view  the  connexion  existing  be* 
tween  the  two  clauses  of  the  verse:  disjoining  the  par- 
ticipial from  the  verbal,  which  is  a  violation  of  the  very 
genius  of  language.  And  thus  he  tramples  under  his 
feet  the  principles  of  his  own  mother-tongue,  and  of  all 
language  used  among  men!  It  requires  a  desperate  ef- 
fort, indeed,  to  overturn  the  authority  of  this  passage. 
But  is  it  consistent  with  the  position  he  occupies]  Would 
it  not  be  expected,  that  the  principal  in  an  institution  of 
learning,  would  be  the  patron  and  guardian  of  sound 
literature,  instead  of  subverting  its  very  first  principles?- 
How  very  advantageous  it  must  be  for  those  under  his 
training!  They  will  no  doubt  be  proficients  in  learning 
as  well  as  in  criticism. 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


107 


Again:  in  connexion  with  his  subversion  of  the  princi- 
ples of  language,  there  must  be  a  false  interpretation  of 
the  passage.  And  this  is  the  case,  for  he  represents  the 
passage  as  enjoining  three  independent  and  principal  du- 
ties, having  no  connexion  with  each  other.  Whereas 
the  design  of  the  Spirit  was  to  enjoin  one  principal  duty, 
and  tv/o  subordinate  duties,  both  subservient  to  the  per- 
formance of  the  principal  one.  And  this  is  done  by 
forms  of  speech  that  harmonize  with  the  principles  of 
language.  The  Doctor's  interpretation  therefore  does 
not  give  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  as  contained  in  this  pas- 
sage. 

In  the  third  place:  by  wrong  statements  respecting  the 
titles  of  the  Psalrns.  I  give  his  paragraph  entire  that 
those  competent  may  examine  it  for  themselves:  and  to 
be  kept  as  a  standing  record  of  the  Doctor's  dissimula- 
tion on  this  subject. 

Page,  39.  *'But  further:  It  is  well  known  to  the  schol- 
ar, that  there  are  various  titles  prefixed  to  the  sacred 
poems  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  There  are  par- 
ticularly three  distinct  titles  used  to  designate  these 
different  compositions.  For  the  sake  of  the  common 
reader  I  will  give  these  titles  in  English  characters.  The 
whole  book  is  called  the  book  of  Tehillim  or  hymns. 
And  the  word  is  used  in  the  singular  number  as  the  title 
of  the  145th  Psalm:  Hymn  of  David,^  Many  of  these 
sacred  songs  bear  the  title,  Mizmor,  a  Psalm.  And 
others  have  affixed  to  them  the  title,  Shir,  a  song.  Here 
then  are  three  different  kinds  of  songs  in  the  book  of 
Psalms  contained  in  the  Bible:  Mizmoriniy  Tehillim, 
Shirim,  signifying  psalms,  hymns,  songs.  But  the  Apos- 
tle wrote  in  the  Greek  language;  and  the  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament  then  used  generally  throughout  the 
Christian  Church,  was  that  which  is  known  by  the  title 


108 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


of  the  Septuagint,  which  is  in  the  Greek  language. 
Now  it  so  happens  that  in  this  Greek  translation  of  the 
book  of  Psalms,  we  have  in  the  titles  prefixed  to  differ- 
ent Psalms,  the  identical  terms  which  we  have  employed 
by  the  Apostle:  'psalms,  hymns  and  songs.'  We  know 
that  there  was  then  received  by  the  church,  a  book  of 
psalms,  hymns  and  songs,  contained  in  the  Bible.  We 
know  of  none  other.  And  the  conclusion  forces  itself 
upon  us,  that  the  Apostle  in  directing  his  Christian 
brethren  to  sing  psalms,  and  hymns,  and  spiritual  songs, 
refers  to  those  with  which  they  were  acquainted  and 
which  the  whole  Christian  Church  regarded  as  a  portion 
of  the  word  of  God.'' 

Now  this  entire  paragraph  is  designed  to  teach  wh^t 
is  not  true;  in  its  parts  separately,  and  especially  as  a 
whole.  The  object  the  Doctor  had  in  view,  was  to  make 
it  appear,  that  the  Apostle  used  the  titles  of  the  psalms, 
when  he  used  the  terms,  psahns,  hymns,  spiritual  soiigs 
These  terms  are  three  in  number:  hence  the  Doctor  says, 
in  the  Hebrew,  '^there  are  particularly  three  distinct 
titles  used  to  designate  these  different  compositions." 
But  the  fact  is,  instead  of  three  there  are  seven,  Miz- 
mor,  occurs  58  times;  Shir,  30  times;  Maschil,  12  times; 
Michtam,  6  times;  Tephillah,  4  times;  Shiggaion,  1  time; 
and  Tehillah,  1  time.  We  see  then,  that  the  Doctor's 
is  a  plain  misrepresentation;  and  especially  so,  when  we 
look  at  the  three  titles  which  he  says  **are  particularly 
used."  They  are  Mizmor,  Shir,  Tehillah.  Tehillah, 
he  says,  is  one  of  the  titles  particularly  used;  and  it  oc- 
curs but  once!  Would  he  be  considered  a  man  of  truth, 
who  would  say,  "There  are  particularly  three  kinds  of 
fruit  trees  in  the  orchard — apple-trees,  peach-trees,  and 
pear-trees;"  when  there  is  in  the  orchard  only  one  apple- 
tree  among  112;  and  six  other  different  kinds;  a  fig-tree, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY.  109 

4  cherry-trees,  6  quince-trees,  12  plum-trees,  30  pear- 
trees,  and  58  peach-trees?  And  he  says,  apple-trees  is 
particularly  one  of  the  kinds  in  the  orchard!  A  man 
from  sinister  motives  making  such  a  statement  respect- 
ing his  orchard  would  hardly  be  considered  blameless. 
And  is  it  less  culpable  to  make  wrong  statements  re- 
specting the  word  of  God]  Again;  the  Doctor  says, 
**The  whole  book  [of  Psalms]  is  called  the  book  of  Te- 
hillim,  or  hymns/'  Now  it  is  not  true  that  the  book  is 
called  ^^hymns^^  either  in  the  Greek  or  in  the  English. — 
In  the  Greek  it  is  called  Psalmoi;  and  in  the  English 
Psalms,  But  the  Doctor  makes  this  desperate  assertion, 
in  order  to  show  that  when  the  Apostle  used,  hymns ^  he 
meant  Psalms  of  David.  But  were  a  man  to  make  such 
assertions  about  worldly  matters,  would  he  be  reckoned 
safe]  Again:  the  Doctor  says,  *^The  word  [Tehillim]  is 
used  in  the  singular  number  as  the  title  of  the  145th 
Psalm:  AJiymn  of  Davids  Here  he  represents  TeJiil- 
lah  of  David,  to  be  translated:  ^^Aliymn  of  David:^^  But 
it  is  not  so  translated  either  in  the  Greek  or  English. 
In  the  Greek  it  is:  ^'Ainesis  tou  David and  in  the  Eng- 
lish: David'' s  Psalm  of  praised  So  that  the  wo^d  hymn 
is  not  in  either:  and  it  is  a  fraudulent  invention  of  the 
Doctor's  to  suit  his  own  purpose — all  to  make  the  Apos- 
tle mean.  Psalms  of  David,  when  he  uses  the  word, 
hymns.  When  a  man  has  recourse  to  such  schemes,  to 
what  might  he  not  resort?  Again:  in  relation  to  the 
Septuagint  the  Doctor  says,  "Now  it  so  happens  that  in 
this  Greek  translation  of  the  book  of  Psalms,  we  have 
in  the  titles  prefixed  to  different  Psalms,  the  identical 
terms  which  are  here  employed  by  the  Apostle.''  Here 
the  Doctor  evinces  great  cunning:  he  states  what  is  true, 
for  the  purpose  of  teaching  what  is  false.  That  these 
terms  are  in  the  titles  is  true:  but  that  they  are  the  titles 

1  0 


110 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


is  false.  And  the  Doctor's  design  is  to  represent  them 
as  the  titles;  for  were  they  not  represented  as  the  titles, 
the  fact  of  them  being  in  the  titles,  would  afford  to  him 
no  support.  But  he  intends  to  teach  that  these  terms  are 
applied  to  the  Psalms,  and  are  descriptive  of  them — that 
is,  that  these  terms  are  the  names  or  titles  of  the  Psalms. 
On  page  141,  he  says,  "From  the  fact,  that  these  different 
terms  are  applied  to  the  same  Psalm,  the  opinion  seems 
to  be  confirmed. Applied,  to  the  same  Psalm,''  teach- 
ing that  the  Psalm  is  called  by  these  terms.  Now  this  is 
the  falsehood  intended  to  be  taught,  that  these  terms  in 
the  titles  are  descriptive  of  the  Psalms;  or  in  other  words 
that  they  «re  the  titles  of  the  psalms.  Bat  according  to 
this  mode  of  applying  terms  in  a  title,  we  might  make 
the  Doctor's  work  on  Psalmody  to  be  almost  any  thing. 
We  could  very  easily  make  it  the  very  oj^posite  of  what 
it  is.  ^'Review  of  Ralslon's  Inquiry  into  the  propriety 
of  using  an  Evangelical  Psalmody  in  the  Worship  of 
God."  Now  suppose  we  take  some  of  the  terms  in  this 
title,  and  say  that  they  are  the  title,  we  could  make  out 
Dr.  Pressly's  work  on  Psalmody,  to  be — "Ralston's  In- 
quiry;''  or  we  could  make  it — "an  Evangelical  Psal- 
mody." (And  the  Doctor  would  hate  that,)  or  we  could 
make  it  "the  Worship  of  God."  And  this  is  the  fallacy 
the  Doctor  palms  upon  his  readers.  The  terms  in  the 
titles,  he  teaches  them  to  believe  are  the  titles.  And 
thus  he  brings  it  out,  that  the  tevmSy  psalms,  and  hymns, 
and  spiritual  songs ,  are  just  the  titles  of  different  Psalms. 
But  this  representation  is  very  far  from  being  the  truth. 
The  term,  hymn,  is  not  the  title  of  a  single  Psalm 
throughout  the  whole  Book.  It  occurs  in  only  six.  In 
every  instance  it  is  in  the  dative  case  plural,  or  objective 
case  in  English;  and  therefore  cannot  be  the  title.  In 
every  instance  too,  it  is  put  for,  Neginothy  in  the  Hebrew; 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Ill 


and  hence  it  is  descriptive  of  the  music  and  not  of  the 
psalm.  For  Neginotk,  is  from  Nagan,  to  strike  the 
strings,  and  according  to  the  best  authorities,  designates 
a  musical  stringed-instrument.  And  thus  we  see,  that 
the  term  hymriy  is  not  found  even  once  as  the  title  of  any 
Psalm  in  the  entire  Book,  And  just  so  it  is  w^ith  the 
other  term,  ^^spiritual  songs, used  by  the  Apostle,  it  is 
not  found  even<??^c€  as  the  title  of  any  Psalm.  The  word 
song,  is  found,  but  that  is  not  what  the  Apostle  employs. 
He  uses  the  descriptive  epithet,  spirituals  and  if  it  had 
been  understood  that  he  was  speaking  of  David's  Psalms 
this  would  have  been  altogether  useless:  and  in  proof  of 
this,  we  find  it  to  be  a  fact,  that  there  is  not  one  of  them 
designated  in  this  manner  throughout  the  whole  Book. 
And  thus  we  see  that  this  entire  paragraph  of  the  Doc- 
tor's is  a  manifest  fabrication.  Indeed  I  never  saw,  and 
I  question  if  any  one  ever  saw,  an  equal  amount  of  mis- 
representation in  the  same  compass.  Verily  it  does  re- 
quire a  desperate  effort  to  overthrow  the  authority  of 
this  passage.  But  how  is  it  possible  to  account  for  such 
dissimulation]  Does  it  arise  from  the  nature  of  the  cause 
maintained]  or  is  it  merely  from  its  advocate]  Does  the 
Doctor  really  know  no  better,  than  to  teach  the  people 
thus]  Can  it  be  possible,  that  it  is  the  blind  leading  the 
blind]  or  should  the  language  of  the  Saviour  on  another 
occasion  be  used]  "If  ye  were  blind,  ye  should  have  no 
sin;  but  now  ye  say.  We  see;  therefore  your  sin  remain- 
eth."  This  deceitful  representation  too,  is  from  the 
Professor's  chair,  which  is  supposed  to  be  the  watchful 
guardian  of  morals!  The  responsibility  of  such  a  po- 
sition, surely  ought  to  be  felt.  When  men  sit  in  Moses' 
seat,  and  love  to  be  called  Rabbi,  they  ought  not  to  be 
indifferent  as  to  the  effect  of  their  example  upon  the  mor- 
ality of  others;  and  of  those  especially  who  are  within 


112 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY 


the  circle  of  their  ofEcial  influence.  But  when  we  see 
such  inventions  coming  from  the  Principal  of  a  Theolo- 
gical Institution;  it  may  enable  us  in  some  measure  to 
account  for  the  reckless  assertions  made  from  some  pul- 
pits on  the  subject  of  Psalmody.  When  such  is  the 
fountain,  what  may  we  expect  the  streams  to  be]  We 
have  indeed,  lamentable  evidence,  that  man  is  fallen; 
and  that  even  good  men  are  very  imperfect. 

We  have  seen  then,  that  the  terms  used  by  the  Apos- 
tle, are  not  the  titles  of  the  Psalms  in  Greek:  because 
liymn  is  not  found  once  as  the  title  of  any  Psalm:  and 
s;piritual  song,  is  not  found  in  the  titles  at  all.  If  the 
Apostle  had  intended  to  employ  the  three  titles  particu- 
arly  used  in  the  Greek  Psalms,  he  would  have  said — in 
psalms,  and  songs,  and  alleluias.  Because  in  the  Greek 
these  are  the  terms  particularly  used.  Alleluia,  is  pre- 
fixed as  the  title  of  twenty  psalms,  while  the  word  hymn 
is  not  once.  And  thus  it  is  seen,  the  more  we  examine 
the  subject,  the  more  irresistably  does  the  conviction 
force  itself  upon  us,  that  the  Apostle  did  not  allude  to 
the  book  of  Psalms  at  all. 

There  have  been  a  good  deal  of  conjecturing  about 
the  difference  in  the  nature  of  different  Psalms  as  indi- 
cated by  their  different  titles.  I  too  may  give  my  opin- 
ion and  let  it  go  for  what  it  is  worth.  It  has  been 
assumed,  that  the  title  of  a  Psalm  is  always  indicative  of 
the  nature  of  the  subject  treated  in  the  Psalm:  but  this  I 
believe  is  entirely  a  mistake.  I  think  there  are  but  few 
of  the  Psalms,  that  have  titles  indicative  of  the  nature  of 
the  subject  treated.  The  title  perhaps  states  the  author 
of  the  composition;  or  the  occasion  for  which  it  was  com- 
posed; or  on  which  it  was  used:  while  it  may  give  no 
information  as  to  the  subject  of  the  Psalm:  and  is  not 
descriptive  of  it  in  that  respect  at  all.    The  following 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


113 


title — "a  Psalm  of  David" — tells  us  merely  that  it  is  a 
poetical  composition — and  that  David  s  its  author:  but 
says  nothing  about  the  subject  of  the  Psalm,  Just  as — 
"a  poem  of  Cowper" — would  tell  us  that  it  is  a  poetical 
composition;  and  that  Cowper  is  its  author,  while  it 
says  nothing  concerning  the  subject  of  the  poem.  Sev- 
eral times  the  following  title  occurs  in  the  Hebrew — "a 
Psalm  of  David,  a  song" — this  tells  us  that  it  is  a  poem; 
that  David  is  its  author;  and  that  it  is  of  that  class  of  po- 
etical compositions  called  songs.  Just  as — *'a  poem  of 
Burns,  a  song"— would  tell  us  that  Burns  is  the  author, 
and  that  it  belongs  to  that  class  of  his  compositions  called 
songs.  I  think  then,  that  the  chief  object  of  the  titles  is 
to  tell  who  the  author  was;  and  other  circumstances: 
but  has  no  reference  to  the  natur-e  of  the  subject  con- 
tained. The  45th  Psalm  has  a  title  descriptive  of  the 
subject — "a  song  of  loves'' — and  the  chief  subject  of  the 
Psalm  is  the  mutual  love  of  Christ  and  his  Church.  The 
60th  Psalm  also  seems  to  have  a  title  of  this  kind — 
^^Michtam  of  David,  to  teach" — a  poem  of  David,  to  give 
instruction:'  and  the  Psalm  consists  principally  in  giving 
information.  But  the  Psalms  are  few  that  have  titles  of 
this  description.  They  merely  state  the  author,  or  the 
cheif  musician  under  whose  direction  they  were  to  be 
sung  in  the  Temple:  or  some  other  circumstances  con- 
nected with  them:  and  do  not  intimate  anything  concern- 
ing the  nature  of  the  subject  contained  in  the  Psalms. 
And  this  view  removes  all  the  difficulty  of  accounting 
for  the  nature  of  different  Psalms,  according  to  their  ti- 
tles; because  their  titles  generally  are  not  indicative  of 
their  nature  at  all. 

It  was  intimated  that  the  Doctor  dealt  a  little  in  so- 
phistical reasoning  while  attempting  to  overthrow  the 
authority  of  the  passage  under  consideration.    He  ar- 
10* 


114 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODYe 


gues  that  the  Apostle  must  have  alluded  to  the  book  of 
Psalms  because  they  were  in  common  use;  and  with 
them  the  people  were  perfectly  familiar.  He  represents 
the  word  of  God  as  equally  common  among  Christians 
then  as  it  is  now;  and  that  they  were  as  familiar  with  it 
then  as  they  are  now.  But  this  representation  is  entire- 
ly fallacious.  The  truth  of  the  matter  is:  there  were 
but  few  that  could  read;  and  the  copies  of  the  Scriptures 
were  exceedingly  scarce.  It  was  long  before  the  art 
of  printing  was  discovered:  and  every  copy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures had  to  be  written  out  by  hand:  a  very  tedious  and 
expensive  work.  And  hence  there  were  but  few  even  of 
the  Jews  themselves,  who  possessed  a  copy  of  their  own 
Scriptures.  A  copy  w^as  provided  for  every  synagogue; 
but  very  few  of  the  people  were  possessed  of  this  costly 
and  precious  treasure.  And  when  we  consider,  that  the 
Christians  of  Coliosse  and  Ephesus  were  lately  convert- 
ed from  heathenism,  how  exceedingly  improbable  it  is, 
that  the  Scriptures  were  common  among  them:  or  that 
they  were  familiar  with  the  word  of  God,  or  the  book 
of  Psalms.  Were  we  to  take  a  full  historical  survey  of 
this  whole  matter,  it  would  be  found  an  absolute  cer- 
tainly, that  the  Christians  whom  Paul  addressed  were 
almost  entirely  unacquainted  with  the  written  word  of 
God.  The  real  facts  of  the  case  are  wholly  different 
from  what  Dr.  Pressly  represents  them;  and  the  reader 
is  led  to  form  an  opinion  completely  contrary  to  histor- 
ical truth. 

The  Doctor  must  believe  that  his  assertions  have  great 
weight  with  a  certain  class  of  people,  for  he  affirms  it 
not  less  than  half  a  score  of  times,  that  this  passage  has 
no  bearing  upon  the  subject  of  controversy;  and  when 
his  people  can  read  the  passage,  and  then  believe  him, 
what  may  he  not  teach  them?    The  point  in  dispute,  he 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


115 


says,  is  not  about  authority  to  use  psalms  and  hymns;  but 
authority  to  make  them:  and  about  making  hymns  the 
passage  is  entirely  silent.  And  he  repeats  it,  and  re- 
peats it  over  and  over,  and  over  again,  usqe  ad  nauseam, 
just  as  though  he  had  made  some  wonderful  discovery! 
Who  ever  imagined  that  the  passage  said  anything  about 
making  hymns]  But  the  passage  authorizes  us  to  sing 
hymns,  and  how  could  we  sing  them  unless  they  were 
made]  When  the  Doctor  authorizes  his  students  to  read 
compositions,  have  they  to  ask  of  him  authority  to  make 
them?  When  the  Presbytery  authorizes  the  Doctor  to 
preach  before  it,  does  he  then  have  to  ask  authority  to 
make  his  sermon?  Or  does  not  authority  to  preach  a 
sermon  imply  authority  to  77iake  one?  When  the  Apos- 
tle says,  "praying  always  with  all  prayer  and  supplica- 
tion in  the  Spirit,^'  is  there  no  authority  to  make  prayers 
but  only  to  use  them?  And  then  the  Doctor  with  this  no- 
tion of  no  authority  to  make  hymns  enlarges  much :  he  fig- 
ures and  flourishes  away;  and  makes  out  that  there  are 
very  few  competent  to  compose  a  hymn  :  or  make  psalms 
even  as  good  as  those  of  Rouse!  Astonishing!  Wh^ta 
wonderful  man !  O  the  bathos  !  But  I  cgn  prove  that  the 
Doctor  is  mistaken,  when  he  says,  "  the  point  in  dispute 
is  not  about  using  but  about  making  hymns/'  By  what 
authority?  Dr.  Pressly!  P.  42,  he  says:  "The  great 
question  at  issue  then,  is  plainly  this:  Have  we  authority 
to  use  in  the  worship  of  God  Evangelical  songs  composed 
by  uninspired  men — or  have  we  not?"  We  see  then, 
that  the  one  Doctor  says,  the  point  in  dispute  is  about  using 
such  songs:  the  other  Doctor  says  no:  it  is  not  about  the 
use,  but  about  the  making  of  such  songs.  Thus  the  one 
Doctor  flatly  contradicts  the  other  Doctor;  and  we  may 
withdraw  and  leave  the  two  Doctors  to  settle  their  own 
controversy.    On  p.  143,  he  says,  "  It  is  XkiQ  Use  of  psalms 


116 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


and  hymns  and  songs  for  mutual  edification  of  which  the 
Apostle  here  speaks.  And  his  exhortation  supposes  that 
they  were  already  prepared:"  Here  the  Doctor  says,  that 
the  exhortation  to  use  implies,  that  the  thing  to  be  used  is 
already  prepared.  And  according  to  this  argument, 
when  the  Apostle  exhorts  christians  to  pray  with  all 
manner  of  prayer  and  supplication,  the  exhortation  im- 
plies, that  all  the  prayers  they  would  ever  use  were 
already  prepared:  trimmed  out,  just  ready  for  their 
hand.  And  when  the  Doctor's  physician  advises  him  for 
the  good  of  his  health,  to  use  coffee  with  cream  and 
sugar,  this  advice  implies,  that  all  the  coffee  he  will  ever 
drink,  is  now  boiled  and  bottled  just  ready  for  his  use. 
And  when  he  advises  the  Doctor  to  eat  wholesome  bread, 
this  implies,  that  all  the  bread  he  will  ever  use  is  already 
baked:  not  only  cooling  but  cooled  !  and  who  would  fear 
that  he  will  be  in  danger  of  eating  it  too  fresh?  And  did 
any  one  ever  before  hear  of  such  reasoning]  Away  in 
the  back  woods  among  the  boys  in  the  common  schools 
perhaps  something  like  it  has  been  heard.  But  coming 
from  the  learned  Doctor;  and  the  chief  Rabbi  among 
his  brethren;  this  is  the  most  astonishing  of  all!  Indeed 
I  confess  it:  I  may  have  been  mistaken,  when  I  spoke  of 
it  as  sophistical  reasoning;  for  it  is  very  likely  it  does  not 
rise  to  the  dignity  of  sophistry.  But  I  think  it  will  readily 
be  admitted,  that  such  argumentation  is  justly  entitled,  to 
the  very  first  rank  in  what  is  usually  called  twaddle ! 

But  the  Doctor  has  really  admitted  all  that  we  seek  to 
prove  by  this  passage,  viz :  That  it  is  our  duty  to  draw 
our  songs  of  praise  from  the  whole  word  of  God.  For 
though  he  aims  at  representing  the  duty  of  letting  the 
word  dwell  in  us,  and  the  duty  of  teaching  one  another, 
as  disconnected  and  independent  duties,  yet  he  incau- 
tiously uses  language  implying  that  there  is  a  connexion 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


117 


between  them.  On  p.  137,  he  says,  **From  these  and 
similar  portions  of  Scripture,  it  is  plain  that  it  is  the 
common  duty  of  christians  to  admonish  and  to  edify  one 
another.  And  that  they  may  be  properly  qualified  for 
the  performance  of  this  duty,  a  familiar  and  enlarged 
acquaintance  with  the  word  of  God  is  requisite.  There- 
fore, says  the  Apostle,  Let  the  word  of  Chri&t  dwell  in 
you  richly  in  all  wisdom."  He  here  admits,  that  to  be 
qualified  for  the  duty  of  admonishing  one  another,  we 
must  be  familiar  with  the  word  of  God.  But  why  is  it 
requisite  that  we  should  be  familiar  with  the  word  of  God^ 
if  in  our  admonitions  we  must  be  confined  to  the  book  of 
Psalms'?  Why  is  it  requisite  for  the  farmer  to  be  well 
furnished  with  hay  and  oats  and  corn,  if  in  feeding  he 
must  be  confined  to  corn?  If  he  must  use  nothing 
but  corn  why  must  he  be  provided  with  other  com- 
modities] So  if  we  must  be  confined  to  the  use  of 
Psalms  in  admonishing,  what  is  the  use  of  being  familiar 
with  the  whole  word  of  God]  Surely  we  might  sing 
Psalms  without  having  an  enlarged  acquaintance  with  the 
whole  word  of  God;  and  the  duty  of  admonishing  is  per- 
formed by  singing.  The  injunction,  to  be  familiar  with 
the  whole  word  to  be  qualified  to  teach  implies,  that 
that  whole  word  is  to  be  used  in  teaching.  Just  as  the 
injunction  upon  the  farmer  to  be  well  supplied  with  hay 
and  oats  and  corn,  implies,  that  he  is  to  use  all  these  in 
feeding.  And  thus  he  admits,  the  passage  teaches  that 
we  are  to  draw  our  songs  of  praise  from  the  whole  word 
of  God.  And  we  have  the  same  thing  still  more  clearly 
admitted  on  p.  136,  "And  the  word  of  Christ  with  which 
it  is  our  duty  to  make  ourselves  well  acquainted,  which 
should  dwell  richly  in  us;  which  we  should  study  to  un- 
derstand, and  in  the  application  of  which  we  should  en- 
deavor to  edify  one  another,  is  the  whole  word  of  God, 


118 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ment." Now  here  is  all  that  we  plead  for.  He  virtually 
says,  that  we  ought  to  draw  our  Psalmody  from  the  whole 
word  of  God.  For  he  says,  it  is  in  the  application  of  the 
whole  word  of  God,  that  we  are  to  edify  one  another ; 
and  the  text  says  we  are  to  apply  it,  in  the  form  psalms 
and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs.  And  if  the  word  of  God 
be  applied  in  these  forms  it  must  be  reduced  to  these  forms 
— that  is,these  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  must 
be  drawn  from  the  whole  word  of  God.  The  whole 
word  cannot  be  applied  in  the  form  of  songs  unless  it  be 
reduced  to  that  form.  If  the  medicine  is  to  be  taken  in 
the  form  of  a  liquid  it  must  be  made  into  a  liquid.  And 
if  the  whole  word  of  God  is  to  be  applied  in  the  form  of 
psalms  and  hymns,  it  must  be  made  into  psalms  and 
hymns.  What  would  be  the  meaning  of  the  following  % 
Furnish  yourselves  abundantly  with  wool,  that  in  the 
application  of  that  wool  you  may  clothe  yourselves  with 
cloth.'*  Would  it  not  obviously  mean  that  the  wool  was 
to  be  reduced  to  cloth,  and  that  cloth  used  for  clothing] 
And  so  when  we  are  to  be  well  furnished  with  the  word 
of  God,  that  in  the  application  of  that  word  we  may  ad- 
monish one  another  in  psalms  and  hymns ;  it  obviously 
means  that  that  word  is  to  be  made  into  psalms  and 
hymns,  and  that  these  are  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
admonition.  The  word  of  God  cannot  be  applied  in 
this  form  unless  it  be  j)ut  into  this  form.  It  cannot  be 
used  in  psalms  and  hymns  unless  it  is  embodied  in  them. 
Hence,  these  psalms  and  hymns  must  be  drawn  from  the 
whole  word  of  God.  When  the  Doctor  admits,  that  this 
text  enjoins  upon  us  to  apply  the  word  of  God  in  ad^ 
monishing  one  another,  that  is  enough :  for  then  the 
text  defines  the  form  in  which  the  word  is  to  be  applied 
— the  form  of  psalms  and  hymns.    When  the  Doctor 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


119 


admits  that  the  wheat  must  be  made  into  bread,  by  that 
he  admits  that  the  wheat  must  be  made  into  flour.  And 
when  he  admits,  that  the  word  must  be  made  into  ad- 
monitions,  by  that  he  admits,  that  the  word  must  be  made 
into  psalms  and  hymns — for  the  text  says,  in  these  we  are 
to  admonish.  And  thus  the  Doctor  has  absolutely  sur- 
rendered the  whole  ground  of  controversy;  and  admitted 
all  that  he  everywhere  denies.  Obviously  he  did  not  in- 
tend it.  The  truth  of  the  passage  crept  in  here  unawares. 
But  its  being  in  was  no  doubt  an  inadvertence  on  the  part 
of  the  Doctor,  as  he  was  so  careful  to  exclude  it  every 
where  else.  But  it  is  here  now,  and  he  cannot  retract  it. 
It  will  stand  as  his  unwilling  admission,  that  it  is  our  duty 
and  privilege,  to  draw  our  songs  of  praise  from  the  en- 
tire word  of  God. 


CHAPTER  V. 


No  DiYiNE  Appointment  Binding  the  Christian  Church  to 

THE  EXCLUSIYE  UsE  OF  DaYID's  PsALMS. 


It  has  been  fully. established,  that  it  is  the  duty  of 
Christians  and  of  the  Christian  Church,  to  employ  in 
their  worship  songs  of  praise  drawn  from  any  part  of 
the  word  of  God.  And  songs  embodying  especially  the 
doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  according  as  they  are  more  ful- 
ly unfolded  by  the  clearer  light  of  New  Testament  reve- 
lations. And  that  therefore,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Church 
to  use  psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs  prepared 
by  uninspired  men;  as  she  has  always  been  in  the  habit 
of  doing.  And  it  follows  from  this  that  it  is  an  unscrip- 
tural  opinion,  to  suppose  the  Church  ought  to  be  confi- 
ned  to  the  Psalms  of  David  in  the  worship  of  God.  We 
know  that  the  church  under  the  old  dispensation  did  sing 
them;  but  that  she  was  not  confined  to  them  there  is 
positive  proof.  And  there  is  positive  proof  too,  that  the 
Church  under  the  new  dispensation,  never  has  been 
confined  to  them.  Nor  can  there  be  any  proof  brought 
to  show  that  the  Christian  Church,  is  required  to  use  the 
Psalms  at  all,  except  so  far  as  it  is  her  duty  to  draw  her 
songs  of  praise  from  them,  in  common  with  the  rest  of 
the  word  of  God,  And  no  doubt  this  portion  of  divine 
Oracles  will  always  be  largely  drawn  upon  by  the 
Church  in  preparing  her  songs  of  praise;  because  there 
is  much  matter  here  suited  to  this  purpose.    To  prove, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


121 


that  the  Church  was  not  confined  to  the  Psalms  under 
the  former  dispensation,  all  we  need  do  is  refer  to  her 
conduct  at  the  Red  Sea,  when  she  praised  the  Lord  for 
deliverance  from  the  hand  of  the  enemy  in  a  song  not 
contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  And  her  conduct, 
when  delivered  from  the  oppression  of  Jabin,  king  of 
Canaan,  in  singing  another  song  not  contained  in  the 
book  of  Psalms.  Another  case  is  that  of  King  Heze- 
kiah  who  introduced  his  own  songs  to  be  sung  in  the 
public  worship  of  God,  and  he  too  an  uninspired  man. 
And  it  was  after  he  had  commanded  the  Levites  to  sino- 

o 

the  words  of  David  and  Asaph,"  that  he  introduced  his 
own  compositions.  And  the  Church  engaged  publicly 
in  singing  these  compositions  as  an  expression  of  their 
gratitude  for  the  recovery  of  the  good  king  of  Israel:  as 
we  are  told  in  Isa.  38:  20.  **The  Lord  was  ready  to 
save  me,  therefore  we  will  sing  my  songs  to  the  stringed 
instruments  all  the  days  of  our  life  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord.*'  One  of  his  songs,  being  revised  by  the  inspired 
prophet,  is  by  his  authority  introduced  as  part  of  the  same 
chapter.  How  many  Hezekiah  composed,  or  how  many 
of  his  songs  were  sung  in  the  Temple  we  know  not.  But 
the  fact  that  they  were  sung  is  sufficient  to  prove,  that  the 
Church  was  not  confined  to  the  use  of  David's  Psalms. 
And  as  to  the  practice  of  the  Church  under  the  new  dis- 
pensation; we  all  see  it,  and  know  it,  that  in  her  wor- 
ship she  is  not  confined  to  the  book  of  Psalms.  And 
that  she  never  has,  is  the  concurrent  testimony  of  all 
ecclesiastical  history. 

But  notwithstanding  these  facts,  Dr.  Pressly  would 
have  us  believe,  that  the  Christian  Church  ought  to 
use  nothing  but  the  Psalms.  To  this  specific  object  he 
devotes  two  whole  chapters.  And  what  do  you  suppose 
he  proves]  Why  he  proves  that  the  Jewish  Church 
11 


122 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


used  them!  And  he  must  be  a  man  of  no  common  parts,  1 
v/hen  he  could  do  this.  And  this  is  really  all  he  does. 
He  dwells  at  great  length  on  the  appointment  made  re- 
specting public  worship  in  tlie  Temple;  and  infers  that 
the  Psalms  were  sung  there.  But,  from  this  appoint- 
ment, does  it  follow  that  the  Christian  Church  ought  to 
sing  them?  By  no  means.  We  shall  give  the  Doctor's 
own  account  of  this  ^'divine  appointment,''  and  then  it 
will  be  seen  that  it  is  no  appointment  for  the  Christian 
Church.  P.  77,  "But  in  connexion  with  the  offering  of 
sacrifice,  David  introduced  the  singing  of  praise.  By 
his  directions  the  Levites  were  numbered  and  distributed 
into  classes,  that  among  other  services  connected  with  the 
worship  of  the  temple,  they  might  'stand  every  morning 
to  thank  and  praise  the  Lord,  and  likewise  at  evening.' 
And  in  the  performanae  of  this  part  of  their  service,  the 
custom  was,  that  when  the  ofiering  was  presented  on 
the  altar,  the  Levites  began  to  sing  the  praise  of  God. 
*  When  the  burnt  offering  began,  the  song  of  the  Lord 
began  also,  with  the  trumpets,  and  with  the  instruments 
ordained  by  David,  king  of  Israel'." 

Now,  what  are  the  several  parts  of  this  "divine  ap- 
pointmentl"  1.  There  was  a  portion  of  the  congrega- 
tion set  apart,  to  the  work  of  praising  the  Lord.  2.  They 
had  to  be  at  the  house  of  the  Lurd  every  morning  and 
every  evening,  3.  They  had  to  stand  when  they  thanked 
and  praised  the  Lord.  4.  They  were  to  praise  the  Lord 
with  trumpets,  and  the  instruments  ordained  by  David. 
Observe,  this  appointment  does  not  say  one  word  about 
what  songs  shall  be  sung.  But  on  the  supposition  that 
the  appointment  specified  the  songs  to  be  sung,  is  it  now 
binding  upon  the  Christian  Church?  This  is  the  question 
to  be  decided.  If  the  appointment  is  now  binding,  all 
its  parts  are  so.    One  part  of  the  appointment  has  not 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


123 


been  abrogated,  while  another  is  still  in  force,  I  utterly 
defy  any  man  to  show,  that  this  is  the  case.  And  the 
Doctor  has  shown  his  consciousness,  that  it  could  not  be 
done,  by  not  attempting  it.  If,  then,  it  enjoins  upon  us 
the  use  of  David's  Psalms,  it  enjoins  upon  us  also  the 
use  of  David's  instruments.  And  it  enjoins  also  the  use 
of  choirs  in  all  our  churches — that  is,  a  portion  of  the 
congregation  set  apart  to  sing  praise,  and  to  conduct  the 
music.  And  these  choirs  must  stajid  when  they  sing  and 
play:  and  they  must  be  at  the  church  every  morning  and 
likewise  at  evening.  Dr.  Pressly  is  very  careful  to  show 
that  this  appointment  is  from  God.  Hence  then,  if  this 
appointment  is  binding  upon  the  Christian  Church,  the 
Doctor  is  living  in  constant  rebellion  against  the  authority 
of  heaven.  He  is  not  only  acting  without  authority,  but 
he  is  acting  in  opposition  to  the  plainest  authority;  con- 
stantly trampling  the  commandments  of  God  under  his 
feet.  For  he  is  making  no  show  of  obedience  to  any 
part  of  the  appointments,  except  that  part  which  enjoins 
upon  him  the  use  of  Rouse's  paraphrase !  But  wx  can- 
not at  all  believe  that  the  Doctor  is  thus  living  in  wilful 
disobedience  to  the  authority  of  God.  And  hence  he 
does  not  believe  the  appointment  is  binding  upon  him; 
or  that  he  is  at  all  bound  to  render  obedience  to  it.  And 
he  believes,  that  its  authority,  as  to  himself,  and  as  to  the 
Christian  Church,  is  perfectly  null  and  void.  He  must 
believe  this,  or  his  guilt  is  of  the  very  deepest  dye.  His 
conduct  would  be  the  most  daring  rebellion  against  God, 
that  ever  has  been  practised  among  men.  We  see  then, 
from  his  practice,  that  he  does  not  believe  this  appoint- 
ment to  be  binding  upon  the  Christian  Church  ;  and  yet 
he  labors  through  two  dozen  pages  to  prove  what  he 
does  uot  believe.    He  does  not  believe  that  the  appoint- 


124 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


ment  is  in  force  uow,  and  yet  he  labors  to  make  others 
believe  that  it  is ! 

We  thus  prove  beyond  dispute^  and  that  from  Dr. 
Pressly's  own  practice,  that  the  appointment  made  for 
the  worship  of  God  in  the  Temple  is  not  binding  upon 
the  Christian  Church.  And  his  practice  is  in  conformity 
with  what  has  always  been  the  belief  of  the  Church  on 
this  subject.  For  the  Christian  Church  has  never  felt 
that  the  appointments  made  for  the  temple  are  binding 
upon  her;  and  hence  she  has  never  tried  to  obey  them. 
And  yet,  it  is  the  authority  of  these  appointments,  that  Dr. 
Pressly  brings  forward  to  prove  it  obligatory  on  Chris- 
tians to  use  the  Psalms  of  David.  Appointments  which 
he  shows  by  his  practice  he  believes  to  be  null  and  void. 

To  prove  divine  appointment  for  the  exclusive  use  of 
David's  Psalms,  he  has  three  principal  arguments.  After 
he  has  spread  them  out  at  length,  on  p.  81,  he  sums  them 
up  as  follows  :  In  the  revelation  which  God  has  given 
to  his  Church,  we  find  a  collection  of  divine  son^o^s,  the 
matter  of  which,  and  the  titles  by  which  they  are  desig- 
nated, and  the  use  which  was  oiiginally  made  of  them 
with  divine  approbation,  manifest,  that  the  specific  end 
for  v^  hich  they  were  given,  was,  that  they  should  be  em- 
ployed in  singing  God's  praise,"  And  on  p.  87,  "From 
the  fact  that  God  has  given  to  his  Church  a  book  of 
Psalms,  it  would  appear  to  be  the  divine  will  that  this 
should  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others," 

His  first  argument  proving  divine  appointment  for  the 
use  of  the  book  of  Psalms  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others, 
is  drawn  from  the  jpeculiar  matter  of  the  Psalms.  Be- 
cause the  matter  is  suitable  to  be  employed  in  singing 
God's  praise.  But  does  not  this  argument  prove  the 
very  reverse  of  that  for  which  he  offers  it.     If  this 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


125 


proves  divine  appointment  for  the  use  of  the  Psalms, 
then  it  proves  divine  appointment  for  the  use  of  all  the 
songs  of  praise  found  throughout  the  whole  Bible.  And 
it  proves  too,  that  there  is  divine  appointment  for  the  use 
of  all  the  hymns  of  praise,  which  have  been  written  by 
Dr.  Watts  and  other  godly  men  in  every  age;  be- 
cause the  matter  is  especially  adapted  to  the  purposes  of 
praise.  His  first  argument,  then,  proves  that  we  should 
not  be  confined  to  the  book  of  Psalms. 

His  next  argument  is  drawn  from  the  titles  by  which 
they  are  designated.  They  are  called  Psalms,  And  he 
says,  "  The  word  *  psalm'  is  of  Greek  derivation,  and  came 
from  a  word  v/hich  signifies  to  sing.  Psalms,  then,  are 
songs  which  are  to  be  sung.''  Now  does  not  this  argu- 
ment prove  the  very  reverse  of  that  intended]  If  their 
use  is  divinely  appointed  because  they  are  called  psalms 
or  songs,  then  there  is  divine  appointment  for  the  use  of 
all  the  songs  in  the  Bible  because  they  are  called  songs; 
and  this  title  is  given  to  them  by  the  Spirit  of  inspiration. 
Thus,  his  second  argument  proves,  that  we  should  not 
use  the  Psalms  of  David  exclusively;  but  that  we  should 
sing  all  the  songs  of  praise  found  in  the  word  of  God. 

His  third  argument  to  prove  divine  appointment  is, 
that  the  Psalms  have  been  used  with  divine  approbation. 
And  so  was  the  song  at  the  Red  Sea.  And  so  was  the 
song  of  Deborah  and  Barak.  And  so  were  the  songs  of 
king  Hezekiah.  And  so  was  the  song  of  the  prophet 
Habakkuk.  And  so  were  the  songs  of  Zacharias  and 
Mary — and  the  angels  on  the  plains  of  Bethlehem^ — and 
of  the  children  in  the  temple — all  used  with  divine  ap- 
probation, and  therefore  all  required  to  be  sung  by  divine 
appointment.  And  thus,  his  third  argument  proves,  that 
it  would  be  in  violation  of  divine  appointment  were  we 
to  confine  ourselves  to  the  book  of  Psalms.  Every  argu- 
11* 


126 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


ment  proves  the  very  reverse  of  that  for  w^hich  it  was 
intended.  Men  may  imagine  that  they  have  found  sup- 
port for  erroneous  views,  but  when  their  arguments  come 
to  be  examined,  they  are  always  found  to  be  defective. 

To  prove  that  the  Christian  Church  ought  to  use  the 
Psalms  exclusively,  he  appeals  also  to  the  authority  of 
the  New  Testament,  and  here  he  is  just  as  unsuccessful 
as  from  the  authority  of  the  Old.  He  refers  to  the  case 
of  the  Saviour  and  his  disciples  singing  a  hymn  at  the 
close  of  the  last  passover.  But  how  does  it  appear  from 
this,  that  the  Christian  Church  ought  to  sing  nothing  but 
the  Psalms  of  David  ]  We  do  not  even  know  what  hymn 
it  was  they  did  sing:  or  who  composed  it ;  whether  it  was 
the  Saviour,  or  Peter,  or  John,  or  another  of  the  disciples, 
or  some  one  else.  The  Doctor,  indeed,  believes  it  was 
the  great  Hallel  they  sung;  but  then  his  belief  does  not 
make  it  so  :  others  have  said  so,  and  he  is  willing  to  concur 
with  them.  They  say  history  informs  us  that  the  Jews 
sung  the  great  Hallel  at  the  celebration  of  the  passover. 
And  what  if  they  did?  History  does  not  tell  us  that 
Christ  and  his  disciples  sung  it — the  doings  of  the  Jews 
is  no  proof  of  what  Christ  and  his  disciples  did.  We 
might  just  as  well  say,  that  because  the  Jews  had  a  cus- 
tom of  washing  their  hands,  and  cups  and  pots,  and  bra- 
zen vessels,  according  to  the  tradition  of  the  Elders, 
therefore  Christ  and  his  disciples  did  the  same.  It 
seems  improbable  too,  that  it  is  was  the  Hallel  they  sung, 
for  the  Hallel  is  not  a  hymn  of  ordinary  length;  but 
consists  of  the  whole  of  six  psalms,  the  113th  to  the 
118th,  inclusive.  And  if  the  practice  was  in  accordance 
with  what  has  been  considered  the  good  old  way — that 
is,  reading  out  each  line  before  singing — they  might  have 
spent  the  greater  part  of  the  night  in  singing  the  Hallel, 
or  these  six  psalms.    But  even  if  it  could  be  established, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


127 


that  they  sung  the  Hallel,  yet  that  would  not  prove  that 
the  Christian  Church  ought  to  sing  the  Psalms  of  David  . 
for  their  singing  at  the  passover  was  under  the  Jewish 
dispensation.  And  we  have  seen,  that  the  practice  of 
the  Jewish  Church  in  her  forms  of  worship,  is  no  rule 
for  the  Christian  Church.  The  Christian  Church  was 
not  then  organized.  The  old  dispensation  was  in  full 
force  until  the  death  of  Christ.  He  did  not  organize 
the  Christian  Church,  but  commissioned  his  Apostles  to 
the  execution  of  that  work.  And  they  were  instructed 
not  to  commence  it,  until  the  Spirit  v/ould  be  poured 
upon  them  from  on  high ;  so  they  tarried  at  Jerusalem 
until  the  day  of  Pentecost.  And  then,  and  not  till  then, 
did  the  dispensation  of  the  Spirit  take  the  place  of  the 
dispensation  of  ceremonies.  Hence  all  that  Christ  did 
was  done  in  the  Jewish  Church;  and  his  conformity  to 
her  forms  of  worship  lays  no  obligation  upon  the  Chris- 
tian Church  to  adopt  those  same  forms.  In  his  obedience 
to  the  precepts  of  the  moral  law  he  is  our  pattern;  but 
not  in  his  obedience  to  the  precepts  of  the  ceremonial 
law.  Christ  and  his  disciples,  then,  singing  a  hymn  does 
not  prove  that  the  Christian  Church  ought  to  sing  the 
Psalms  of  David. 

To  sustain  his  position  the  Doctor  refers  to  Col,  3:  16, 
and,  on  p.  73,  says,  "  The  reader  will  please  to  remember 
what  has  been  said  in  a  preceding  chapter  on  the  words 
of  the  Apostle,  when  he  exhorts  the  Church  to  enoao-e  in 
the  duty  of  singing  ^psalms  and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs.' 
It  is  believed  that  no  interpretation  of  the  Apostle's  lan- 
guage can  be  sustained,  which  does  not  proceed  upon 
the  principle  that  there  is  a  reference  to  the  different 
songs  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  And  this  being 
admitted,  it  will  follow  that  we  have  an  explicit  divine 
direction  to  employ  these  songs  in  the  worship  of  God." 


128 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


This  being  admitted."  But  who  admits  this?  Who 
admits  the  correctness  of  his  interpretation]  Who  ad- 
mits the  truth  of  what  he  has  said  respecting  the  Psalms 
and  their  titles'?  Perhaps  the  Doctor  admits  it.  But  if 
he  admits  the  correctness  of  his  own  statements  in  this 
matter,  he  has  had  credit  for  knowing  more  about  the 
Bible,  than  he  really  does.  No  man  acquainted  with 
Bible  philology  can  for  a  moment  admit  it.  And  it  has 
been  shown,  that  in  this  passage  there  is  no  allusion  to 
the  book  of  Psalms  any  more  than  to  other  parts  of 
the  word  of  Christ.  Because  we  are  commanded  to 
draw  our  songs  of  praise  from  any  and  every  part  of 
that  word,  that  by  teaching  and  admonisliing  one  another 
in  these  songs,  we  may  have  the  word  of  Christ  dwelling 
in  us  richly.  It  has  been  shown  too,  from  Doctor 
Pressly's  own  admission,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  is  not 
meant  in  this  passage.  For  he  says  it  enjoins  upon  us 
to  let  the  whole  word  of  God  dwell  in  us,  that  we  may 
apply  it  in  teaching  and  admonishing  one  another;  and 
the  text  says  we  are  to  apply  it  in  the  form  of  psalms 
and  hymns  and  spiritual  songs ;  proving  clearly,  that 
these  are  to  be  drawn  from  the  whole  word,  and  not 
merely  from  the  book  of  Psalms.  This  passage,  then, 
does  not  enjoin  upon  the  Christian  Church  the  use  of  the 
Psalms  of  David. 

He  refers  also,  to  the  exhortation  of  the  Apostle  James : 
Is  any  merry]  Let  him  sing  psalms. And  on  this  pas- 
sage, as  on  the  titles  of  the  Psalms,  he  uses  a  great  deal 
of  unfairness;  and  is  very  careful  to  conceal  the  truth. 
On  p.  84,  he  says  ;  "  In  what  sense  is  it  reasonable  to 
suppose,  that  the  primitive  Christians  would  understand 
the  apostolic  direction,  **Is  any  merry]  Let  him  sing 
psalms]''  To  assist  the  plain  Christian  in  determining 
what  is  the  proper  answer  to  this  inquiry,  let  me  pro- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


129 


pose  another  question.  When  our  Lord  said  to  his 
hearers,  ^'Search  the  Scriptures;'^  in  what  sense  is  it  to  be 
supposed,  that  this  direction  would  be  understood!  As 
the  command  of  Christ,  Search  the  Scriptures,"  sup- 
poses that  there  were  in  existence  sacred  writings,  with 
which  those  to  whom  the  command  was  addressed,  were 
acquainted;  so  the  apostolic  direction,  ^'Sing  psalms,"  sup- 
poses that  there  were  psalms  in  existence,  which  those 
to  whom  the  direction  was  Driven,  were  to  use."  Here 
he  founds  his  argument  upon  an  utterly  false  assump- 
tion :  it  is,  that  these  two  passages  are  similar — that 
the  language  is  precisely  alike;  which  is  anything  but 
the  truth.  All  through  his  argument  he  teaches  that  as 
Christ,  by  ^'The  Scriptures,"  meant  the  word  of  God;  so 
J ames,  by  "psalms,"  must  have  meant  the  book  of  Psalms , 
He  keeps  out  of  view  the  fact,  that  the  two  forms  of 
speech  are  entirely  different ;  the  one  having  the  definite 
article,  *'  The,"  pointing  out  a  definite  object;  while  the 
Other  has  no  article  and  points  out  nothing  definite.  The 
one  says  'Hlie  Scriptures  :"  and  the  Other,  not /j^e?  Ps alms, 
but  merely  "  psalms."  The  one  must  designate  "  the 
Scriptures,"  but  the  other  may  designate,  not  the  Psalms, 
but  any  psalms  whatever,  either  in  existence  or  out  of 
existence.  The  nature  of  language  is  :  that  when  a 
definite  object  is  spoken  of,  the  definite  article  is  always 
used;  and  when  no  definite  article  is  used,  before  a  sub- 
stantive, no  definite  object  is  spoken  of.  "Search  the 
Scriptures,"  speaks  of  a  definite  object;  but  "sing 
psalms,"  speaks  of  no  definite  object.  A  definite  ob- 
ject can  never  be  spoken  of,  without  the  definite  article 
before  the  noun;  but  James  uses  no  definite  article 
before  the  noun ;  and  hence,  he  does  not  speak  of 
a  definite  object.  "  The  Psalms"  was  not  the  object  be- 
fore his  mind,  or  he  would  have  said  ''the  Psalms."  Just 


130 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


as  the  Saviour  had  ^'tlie  Scriptures"  as  the  object  be- 
fore his  mind,  and  said  Scriptures."  If  the  Saviour 
had  said,  **  Search  Scriptures,"  then  his  language  would 
have  been  just  like  that  of  James,  "  sing  psalms,"  but  as 
they  are,  there  is  no  similarity.  *'Make  up  fire,"  has  a 
different  meaning  from  **make  up  tlie  fire."  The  one 
speaks  of  a  fire  that  does  not  yet  exist;  but  the  other 
speaks  of  a  fire  already  in  existence.  And  so,  sing 
psalms,"  may  speak  of  psalms  not  yet  in  existence;  but 
"sing  the  psalms"  speaks  of  psalms  already  in  existence. 
Paul  does  not  say  *'  bring  a  cloak  from  Troas,"  for  that 
w^ould  mean  any  cloak  that  could  be  found  there,  even 
one  not  yet  made ;  but  he  says,  "bring  the  cloak, ^'  the 
specific  cloak  that  was  left  there.  And  so  he  says 
"  bring  the  parchments  ;"  he  does  not  say  bring  parch- 
ments" from  Troas,  for  that  might  mean  parchments  not 
yet  manufactured.  And  so  James  says,  "sing  psalms, 
which  may  mean  psalms  not  yet  composed.  His  lan- 
guage does  not  even  imply  that  there  were  any  psalms 
in  existence.  And  yet  Dr.  Pressly  teaches,  that  the  two 
passages  are  precisely  alike.  He  subverts  and  tramples 
under  his  feet  the  very  genius  and  principles  of  language,^ 
and  yet  he  fills  the  place  of  principal  in  an  institution  of 
learning!  If  learning  had  no  other  kind  of  patrons  and 
supporters,  what  would  it  come  to] 

But  he  not  only  manages  his  argument  in  violation  of 
the  principles  of  language,  but  also  conceals  the  fact, 
that  the  word  "psalms,"  is  not  in  the  original  text  at  alt,, 
but  is  supplied  by  the  translators.  The  translation  con- 
fines the  singing,  to  psalms^  but  the  original  does  not. 
It  says  simply,  "let  him  sing,"  or  let  him  praise,  or  let 
him  sing  to  an  instrument.  But  about  what  he  is  to  sing 
it  says  nothing.  The  two  clauses  of  the  verse  are  pre- 
cisely alike.  "Is  any  among  you  afflicted  1 — proseukestho 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


131 


— let  him  pray.  Is  any  merry  ? — psalleto — let  him  sing.' ' 
The  first  might  as  well  have  been  translated,  **let  him 
i^rQ,y  prayers'^  as  the  second  to  be  translated  **let  him 
BmgpsalmSy^  because  there  is  as  much  for  'prayers  in  the 
one  case,  as  there  is  for  psalms  in  the  other.  And  to 
show  that  the  word,  Pslleto,  does  not  necessarily  mean 
^'B>mg psalms, we  may  refer  to  Eph.  5:  19.  "Be  filled 
with  the  spirit;  speaking  to  yourselves  in  psalms  and 
hymns  and  spiritual  songs,  singing  nnd  psallontes  in  your 
hearts  to  the  Lord."  Here,  psallontes,  is  translated,  "ma- 
king melody. But  if  it  had  been  translated,  singing 
psalmSf  we  see  how  it  would  read; — "singing  and  singing 
psalms  in  your  hearts  to  the  Lord."  It  is  not  necessary 
then,  that  the  word  "psalms"  should  be  in  the  translation, 
it  might  as  well  have  been  omitted.  Yet  when  taken  in 
its  proper  meaning  as  designating  any  song  sung  to  an 
instrument,  it  may  then  be  supplied.  But  after  all,  it  is  a 
word  supplied  by  the  translators,  which  is  not  in  the  ori- 
ginal; and  the  Doctor's  whole  argument  from  this  text, 
rests  upon  this  supplementary  word  !  If  it  had  been 
translated,  as  it  is  in  the  original,  "let  him  sing,"  he  could 
have  formed  no  argument  from  it.  And  yet  it  is  a  text 
of  which  he  makes  especial  use!  Several  places  in  his 
book  he  brings  it  up  as  very  conclusive.  An  argument 
founded  in  ignorance  of  the  original,  which  would  be 
used  only  by  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water,  is 
to  the  Doctor  a  very  important  one.  Is  it  not  extraordi- 
nary to  see  him  going  no  further  than  the  translation, 
and  founding  a  principal  argument  on  nothing  but  a  sup- 
plementary word]  A  man  of  no  pretentions  to  learn- 
ing might  do  it.  But  the  scholar!  the  Doctor  of  divinity! 
Has  its  equal  ever  before  been  published  to  the  world  % 
Is  it  not  always  supposed,  that  a  man  competent  to  ex 
pound  the  word  of  God,  will  never  rely  upon  a  transla- 


132 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


tion;  but  will  build  upon  the  foundation  itself?  Suppose 
Dr.  Alexander  bad  given  us  an  exposition  of  the  com- 
mon translation  of  Isaiah,  what  a  thing  it  must  have  been^ 
compared  with  the  immortal  work  he  has  reared  upon 
the  original.  And  Dr.  Pressly  gets  only  to  the  translation  , 
and  founds  w^hat  he  considers  a  very  strong  argument 
upon  a  word  which  is  not  in  the  original  at  all!  Yes  up- 
on a  word  of  this  very  kind!  This  is  the  way  in  which  he 
enlightens  his  readers!  This  is  the  way  in  which  he  **as- 
sists  the  plain  Christian  in  determining  what  is  the  truth  !  ! 
Yes  !  he  assists  him  !  If  the  Doctor  had  said,  To  as- 
sist the  plain  Christian  in  coming  to  a  wrong  conclusion, 
let  7ne  propose  another  question,"  he  would  have  been 
honestly  announcing  what  he  was  going  to  do;  and  in 
this  part  of  his  argument  at  least,  he  would  have  had  the 
truth.  In  the  name  of  common  morality,  how  can  he 
reconcile  it  with  his  conscience,  as  a  public  teacher,  to 
wrap  things  up  in  concealment  the  way  he  does ;  and  to 
hide  from  the  people  the  real  facts,  when  he  professes 
to  expound  to  them  the  word  of  God]  And,  as  an  am- 
bassador of  the  King  of  Zion,  how  can  he  reconcile  it 
with  his  accountability,  when  he  deals  with  the  Statute- 
Book  of  the  kingdom  in  this  way?  Surely  the  cause  of 
truth  does  not  need  such  management  as  he  has  recourse 
to  1  And  enough  has  been  said  to  show,  that  there  is 
nothing,  in  this  text,  enjoining  the  use  of  David's  Psalms 
upon  the  Christian  Church. 

Again,  he  rests  another  argument  on  the  assumption  that 
some  songs  have  been  transferred  to  the  book  of  Psalms 
from  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  On  p.  87,  he  says :  "And 
it  is  a  fact  which  deserves  particular  notice,  that  some  of 
the  songs  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  are  found 
likewise  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible.  The  eighteenth 
Psalm  is  found  in  the  second  book  of  Samuel,  and  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


133 


niiity-sixth,  and  parts  of  some  other  psalms,  are  found  in 
the  second  book  of  Chronicles.  Other  songs  found  in 
different  parts  of  the  Bible  are  not  transferred  to  the 
book  of  Psalms.  And  the  question  naturally  arises,  Why 
is  this  distinction  madel  I  can  conceive  of  no  answer  so 
satisfactory  as  this  :  that  the  book  of  Psalms  being  de- 
signed for  permanent  use  in  the  worship  of  God,  those 
songs  have  a  place  in  this  book,  which  in  the  estimation 
of  infinite  wisdom,  were  best  adapted  to  the  edification 
of  the  Church  in  all  ages.''  Now,  if  it  were  "a  fact," 
that  some  songs  have  been  transferred  to  the  book  of 
Psalms  from  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  it  might  afibrd  him 
some  shadow  of  support  for  his  own  notion.  But  then, 
there  is  no  evidence  that  it  is  ''a  fact."  All  the  evidence 
tends  to  prove,  that  no  songs  have  been  transferred  from 
other  parts  of  the  Bible  to  the  book  of  Psalms.  It  is  in 
this,  as  in  much  of  the  proof  he  brings  :  A  story  he  has 
heard  from  others  he  takes  up  and  builds  an  argument 
upon  it,  without  examining  whether  itreally  has  any  found- 
ation in  truth.  For  there  is  not  a  particle  of  evidence 
that  any  song  has  been  transferred  from  another  part  of 
the  Bible  to  the  book  of  Psalms.  It  is  not  even  a  fact, 
though  he  says  it  is  one  which  deserves  particular  notice, 
that  some  of  the  songs  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms 
are  found  likewise  in  other  parts  of  the  Bible.  The  18th 
Psalm  is  not  a  copy  of  the  song  found  in  the  22d  of  2d 
vSamuel:  They  are  in  substance  the  same,  but  they  are 
not  transcripts  of  each  other.  Any  one  who  looks  at 
them  can  see  they  are  not.  And  Dr.  Scott  says,  "  The 
Jewish  writers  enumerate  not  less  than  seventy-four 
variations."  This  of  itself  is  sufficient  to  prove,  that 
the  song  contained  in  2d  Samuel  is  not  transferred  to 
the  book  of  Psalms.  Dr.  Scott's  opinion  seems  to  be 
the  correct  one  :  and  from  what  he  says,  the  history  of 

12 


134 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


this  song  seems  something  like  the  following — As  David 
had  the  song  by  him  in  his  own  private  collection,  he 
gave  a  copy  of  it  to  the  writer  of  2d  Sam.  After  this 
David  revised  it  and  gave  it  to  the  chief  musician  to  be 
sung  in  the  public  congregation.  It  would  then  be  pre- 
served in  the  collection  of  sacred  songs  given  in  charge  to 
the  Levites,  as  we  are  told  by  Josephus,  the  Jewish  histo- 
rian. And  whoever  compiled  the  book  of  Psalms  found  it 
there,  with  the  rest,  without  going  to  the  book  of  Sam- 
uel to  get  a  copy.  But  wherever  the  compiler  may  have 
got  this  song,  it  is  beyond  dispute,  that  he  did  not  trans- 
fer the  song,  which  is  in  the  book  of  Samuel,  to  the  book 
of  Psalms. 

Again,  the  Doctor  says,  ^'the  ninty-sixth  and  parts  of 
some  other  psalms,  are  found  in  the  second  book  of 
Chronicles."  But  this  is  not  so:  something  like  them  is 
found  in  the  IGth  chapter  of  the  first  book  of  Chroni- 
cles. This  is  no  typographical  error,  for  he  gives  it  in 
words,  not  in  figures.  But  it  is  a  sample  of  his  usual  want 
of  accuracy;  and  an  evidence  that  he  takes  things  on  ru- 
mor without  examining  for  himself.  Nor  is  it  like  a 
typographcial  error  to  give  the  "15"  of  second  Chroni- 
cles instead  of  the  5th.  It  looks  like  as  though  he  had 
heard  somebody  say  it  was  in  the  15th,  and  gave  it  so. 
But  has  the  song  found  in  Chronicles  been  transferred 
to  the  book  of  Psalms'?  Nothing  like  it.  This  song- 
was  used  when  the  ark  was  brought  up  from  the  house 
of  Obed-edom  to  the  City  of  David.  And  Dr.  Scott, 
no  doubt,  gives  the  correct  account  of  this  matter.  He 
says  :  "  The  psalm  which  was  sung  on  this  solemn  oc- 
casion, is  composed  of  extracts  from  several  psalms. 
Probably  David  had  these  by  him,  with  many  others, 
for  his  cwn  private  use;  and  he  composed  from  them  a 
song  of  praise  and  thanksgiving,  to  record  the  mercies 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


135 


of  the  Lord,  suited  to  the  solemnity.  But  afterwards  he 
gave  the  other  psalms  also,  one  after  another,  into  the 
hands  of  the  chief  singers,  for  the  benefit  of  the  people 
who  attended  the  worship  performed  before  the  ark." 
We  hero  learn  how  these  songs  are  in  the  book  of  Psalms 
without  being  transferred  from  the  book  of  Chronicles, 
David  had  them  in  his  own  private  collection :  from  them 
he  arranged  a  song  of  praise  for  this  solemn  occasion. 
Bat  afterwards  gave  them  severally  to  the  chief  singers: 
then  they  formed  a  part  of  the  sacred  collection  in 
charge  of  the  Levites,  and  there  were  found  by  the 
compiler,  and  embodied  in  the  book  of  Psalms,  without 
going  to  the  book  of  Chronicles  for  a  copy.  But  these 
psalms  are  not  found  in  the  book  of  Chronicles.  True, 
there  is  something  like  parts  of  the  105th  and  lOGtli 
psalms;  and  there  is  something  like  the  96th  psalm,  but 
that  is  all.  Dr.  Pressly  says,  that  the  96th  psalm  is  found 
in  the  book  of  Chronicles ;  and  the  only  difference  is, 
that  it  is  not.  Any  one  who  takes  the  trouble  to  exam- 
ine will  see  it  is  not.  The  96th  psalm,  then,  could  not 
be  a  copy  of  the  one  found  in  the  book  of  Chronicles  ; 
because  it  is  not  in  that  book.  And  so  it  is  with  all  the 
Psalms  alluded  to  :  they  are  not  copies  of  any  other 
gongs  anywhere  in  the  Bible.  Hence  these  songs  are 
not  transferred  to  the  book  of  Psalms  from  other  parts 
of  the  Bible.  And  it  is  not  a  fact  at  all,  *'which  deserves 
particular  notice,"  that  some  of  the  songs  contained  in 
the  book  of  Psalms,  are  likewise  found  in  other  parts  of 
the  Bible.''  But  this  is  another  specimen  of  the  way 
the  Doctor  enlightens  the  people,  respecting  the  facts 
connected  with  the  word  of  God.  It  must  be  of  vast 
advantage  to  that  branch  of  the  Church,  to  have  their 
chief  theological  chair  replenished  with  such  an  embodi- 
TDent  of  accurate  Biblical  knowledge !    And  what  though 


136 


MORTON   ON  PSALMODY. 


it  were  a  fact,  that  some  psalms  are  found  in  other  parts 
of  the  Bible.  That  would  no  more  prove,  that  they  have 
been  transferred  from  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  than  the 
fact  of  Dr.  Pressly's  arguments  being  found  in  Dr. 
M'Master's  work  on  Psalmody,  would  prove,  that  they 
were  transferred  from  Dr.  Pressly's,  to  the  work  of  Dr. 
M'Master.  The  fact  of  them  beins^  in  both  affords  no 
proof  as  to  which  they  were  transferred  from.  Upon 
the  whole  then,  we  see,  that  this  assumption  of  psalms 
being  transferred  from  other  parts  of  the  Bible,  is  noth- 
ing but  a  story  got  up  by  Psalmonites,  and  handed  from 
one  to  another,  for  the  purpose  of  sustaining^  a  poor 
feeble  cause.  But  the  aid  of  such  stories  is  not  required 
for  the  cause  of  truth. 

The  principal  object  at  which  the  Doctor  aims  through- 
out these  two  chapters,  is  to  prove,  that  the  purpose  for 
w^hich  the  Psalms  were  given,  was,  that  they  might  be 
used  by  the  Church  in  praising  God.  "  That  specific 
end,"  he  says,  ''for  which  they  were  given,  was,  that 
they  should  be  employed  in  singing  God's  praise."  Im- 
plying that  the  book  of  Psalms  would  not  have  been 
given  at  all,  had  it  not  been  the  design  to  furnish  the 
Church  with  a  suitable  Psalmody.  They  are  given  to  be 
sung,  and  this  is  the  special,  and  almost  only  design  for 
which  they  were  given.  He  asserts  this  frequently  and 
maintains  it  in  various  forms.  Hence,  if  this  is  true,  we 
ought  to  use  these  Psalms  for  the  purpose  for  which  they 
were  given.  But  I  apprehend  this  is  a  very  important 
mistake  under  which  the  Doctor  labors.  And  his  utter 
failure  in  proving  this,  shows  that  it  is  a  mistake.  When- 
ever he  takes  this  ground  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  sus- 
tain himself.  He  cannot  produce  a  single  text  which 
teaches,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  given  for '*the  spe- 
cific end  of  being  employed  in  singing  God's  praise." 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


137 


All  the  proof  he  can  find  is  inferential.  He  infers  it 
from  the  arguments  we  have  already  noticed — the  matter 
of  the  psalms — the  titles  of  the  psalms — -and  their  use 
with  divine  approbation.  But  all  that  these  considera- 
tions can  prove  is,  that  the  psalms  are  suitable  to  be  sung: 
while  they  do  not  prove,  that  they  were  given  for  the 
specific  end  of  being  sung.  An  article  may  suit  many 
uses  besides  that  for  which  it  was  given.  The  steel  of 
the  assassin  may  suit  to  murder  his  victim  ;  yet  this  does 
not  prove  that  the  valuable  metal  was  given  for  that  pur- 
pose. The  alcohol  of  "him  that  giveth  his  neighbour 
drink, may  suit  to  destroy  his  neighbor  ;  yet  this  does 
not  prove  that  it  was  given  for  this  specific  end.  The 
matter^  and  the  title ^  and  the  use^  of  animal  food,  all  in- 
dicate that  it  is  suitable  for  feeding  wild  beasts ;  yet  all 
these  do  not  prove,  that  it  was  given  to  Noah  for  this 
special  purpose.  And  we  see  that  the  Doctor's  argu- 
ments are  entirely  fallacious.  The  psalms  may  be  suit- 
able for  praise,  while  they  were  not  given  for  this  special 
purpose.  And  the  conclusion  to  which  we  come  is  this : 
That  the  specific  end  for  which  they  were  given  wasTzo^, 
that  they  should  be  employed  by  us  in  singing  God's 
praise.  This  is  directly  contrary  to  the  Doctor's  propo- 
sition ;  and  to  prove  it,  I  appeal  to  the  infallible  word  of 
God.  Kom.  15  :  4.  "  For  v/hatsoever  things  were  writ- 
ten aforetime  were  written  for  learning,  that  we  through 
patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have  hope.'' 
Here  there  is  no  fallacy:  no  inferring :  no  surmising  as 
to  the  object  for  which  the  Psalms  wei'e  given.  The  un- 
erring word  of  truth  tells  us  that  they  were  given  for  our 
learning,  and  not  for  our  singing,  as  the  Doctor  would 
have  us  believe.  Whatsoever  things  were  written 
aforetime;"  this  covers  the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  book  of  Psalms,  and  all .  And  all,  the  Apos- 
12* 


138 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


tie  says,  was  given  for  our  learning.  And  besides,  he 
speaks  especially  of  the  book  of  Psalms.  Because  he 
brings  a  quotation  from  the  69th  Psalm,  and  says,  this 
was  written  for  our  learning:  *'For  whatsoever  things 
were  written  aforetime  were  written  for  our  learning,^'' 
He  teaches  very  different  from  Dr.  Pressly.  The  Doc- 
tor says,  "  the  specific  end  for  which  they  were  given, 
was,  that  they  should  be  employed  in  singing  God^s 
praise.''  The  Apostle  says.  No  !  they  were  given  for 
our  learning.  And  though  the  Doctor  affirms  it,  and 
affirms  it  again  and  again ;  the  Apostle  always  puts 
liis  veto  upon  it.  It  is  a  standing  negative  to  all  the 
Doctor's  affirmations  and  arguments  on  this  topic. 

We  see  then,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  given  for 
the  same  purpose,  as  that  for  which  the  rest  of  the  word 
of  God  was  given,  namely,  for  our  learning.  That  we 
misht  learn  the  will  of  God — that  we  miorht  learn  to 
''fear  God  and  keep  his  commandments" — that  we 
might  learn  how  to  glorify  Him  upon  earth,  and  attain 
to  the  enjoyment  of  Him  in  Heaven.  And  if  we  learn 
this  from  the  Psalms,  though  we  should  never  sing  them, 
we  use  them  for  the  very  end,  for  which  they  were  giv- 
en. And  this  refutes  all  the  Doctor  says  about  the  im- 
y)iety  and  presumption  of  supposing  that  some  portions 
of  the  Psalms  are  not  ^'suited  to  Gospel  worship  and 
praise."  To  suppose  so,  lie  alleges,  is  to  impugn  the 
Spirit  of  God  with  want  of  wisdom.  He  says,  "But  are 
not  these  Psalms  the  production  of  the  Holy  Spirit? 
And  are  parts  of  them  not  suited  to  the  end  for  which 
they  were  given?" — O  yes  Doctor,  they  are  all  suited  to 
the  end  for  which  they  were  given;  because  they  were 
given  *'for  our  learning."  Hear  him  again: — '*That  is 
though  these  Psalms  were  given  to  the  Church  by  the 
God  of  infinite  wisdom,  to  be  employed  in  his  worship, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


139 


they  were  not  adapted  to  the  end  for  which  they  were 
given!  O  vain  man,  who  art  thou  that  repliest  against 
God]" — Yes,  O  Doctor!  who  art  thou,  that  repliest 
against  God?  by  denying  what  he  has  affirmed;  and  by 
representing  Him  as  doing  what  He  has  never  done. 
God  affirms  that  the  Psalms  were  given  for  our  learn- 
ing, and  you  deny  it!  You  represent  Him  as  giving  the 
Psalms  to  us,  for  "the  specific  end  of  being  employed  in 
singing  his  praise,"  while  He  declares,  that  this  He  has 
not  done.  Man,  indeed,  is  vain  and  haughty,  v/hen 
he  can  use  such  presumption!  Again  he  says:  "Dr. 
Watts  in  preparing  a  system  of  Psalms  for  the  use  of 
the  Church,  has  entirely  omitted  some  whole  Psalms, 
and  large  pieces  of  many  others.  And  why]  Because 
he  considered  them  unsuitable  for  the  Church  under  the 
present  dispensation.  And  do  you  think,  let  me  ask  the 
humble  believer,  that  the  word  of  God  has  been  given  in 
such  a  defective  form,  that  some  parts  of  it  may  be  laid 
aside  as  useless,  while  portions  may  be  selected,  which 
may  be  profitably  retained]" — Now  Doctor,  this  is  very 
silly;  for  it  never  entered  any  man's  mind  except  your 
own,  that  the  word  of  God  was  given  in  a  defective 
form — the  notion,  "that  some  parts  may  be  laid  aside  as 
useless,"  is  purely  the  product  of  your  own  fancy.  The 
word  of  God  is  in  the  proper  form  to  suit  the  end  for 
which  it  was  given — that  is  our  learning.  And  we  may 
learn  from  every  part  of  it;  while  we  cannot  use  every 
part  of  it  in  offering  praise  to  God.  No  part  of  it  may 
be  laid  aside  as  useless;  because  for  our  learning,  it  must 
all  be  retained.  But  it  does  not  follow,  that  we  must 
sing,  and  in  the  same  form  too,  that  which  was  given  for 
our  learning.  If  it  had  been  given  for  our  singing  it 
would  have  been  framed  to  suit  that  use:  but  it  has  been 
given  for  our  learning,  and  it  is  just  adapted  to  that  use. 


140 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


It  suits  the  use  designed  without  alteration;  but  the  use 
not  designed  it  suits  only  with  alteration.  And  Doctor 
you  are  only  trying  to  misrepresent  the  matter.  Here 
is  some  more — "To  this  Psalm  1 1 19thJ  Dr.  Watts  has  pre- 
fixed this  remarkable  note;  *'T  have  collected  and  dispo- 
sed the  most  useful  verses  of  this  Psalm,  under  eighteen 
different  heads,  and  formed  a  divine  song  on  each  of 
them;  but  the  verses  are  much  transposed  to  attain  some 
degree  of  connection."  Then  comes  Dr.  Pressly's  de- 
clamation:— "Can  it  be,  that  the  man  who  employed 
such  language  regarded  this  Psalm  as  the  production  of 
infinite  wisdom?"  Why  yes  Doctor;  there  is  nothing 
here  that  implies  the  contrary.  "Does  this  Psalm  con- 
tain the  precious  truths  of  God,  and  yet  shall  a  sinful 
mortal  select  such  verses  as  he  considers  most  useful?" 
— Yes  Doctor;  it  is  what  you  do  yourself:  and  are  you 
sinless?  You  always  select  the  verses  you  consider 
most  useful  for  the  purpose  designed.  When  you  coun- 
sel the  inquiring,  or  the  doubting,  or  the  afflicted,  you 
always  select  the  verses  you  consider  most  useful.  And 
you,  "a  sinful  mortal,"  do  this!  horrible*  "And  pass 
over  the  remainder  as  unworthy  of  notice:" — But 
Doctor  who  does  this?  Perhaps  you  do  it! — But  Dr. 
Watts  was  never  guilty  of  such  a  thing.  He  considered 
it  all  eminently  worthy  of  notice,  as  suited  to  the  design 
for  which  it  w^as  given,  i.  e.  our  learning. — "Is  this  re- 
markble  Psalm  the  work  of  God's  holy  Spirit,  and  yet 
is  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  exhibited  so  awkwardly  as  to 
render  it  necessary,  that  the  verses  should  be  transposed, 
to  attain  some  degree  of  connection?"  Doctor;  who  ever 
thought  of  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  being  awkwardly  exhib- 
ited? Do  you  think  it  could  arise  in  any  body's  imagina- 
tion except  your  own?  Dr.  Watts  never  dreamt  of  any 
thing  so  awkward.  He  considered  the  mind  of  the  Spir- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


141 


it  is  exhibited  in  the  most  appropriate  manner;  and  it 
was  not  in  that  he  endeavored  "to  attain  some  degree  of 
connection;"  but  in  each  of  the  divine  songs  he  himself 
composed  under  different  heads.  He  aimed  at  having 
some  degree  of  connection  in  the  matter  contained  un- 
der each  head.  But  the  Psalm  w^as  not  given  under 
heads,  and  hence  in  its  matter  no  degree  of  connection 
was  necessary.  And  my  dear  Doctor;  you  know  very 
well,  that  the  way  you  exhibit  the  matter,  is  merely  a 
misrepresentation. — appeal  to  the  sober  judgment  of 
all  reflecting  men  while  I  say  it  would  be  an  indignity 
to  any  respectable  man,  to  treat  his  writings  in  the  way, 
in  which  Dr.  Watts,  according  to  his  own  statement,  has 
treated  this  admirable  portion  of  the  word  of  God." — 
Doctor;  this  sounds  like  something  very  serious  and  im- 
portant; and  yet  it  is  nothing  but  mere  faddle — empty 
declamation,  without  any  force;  as  it  contains  nothing 
but  a  false  insinuation.  For  no  respectable  man  would 
feel  aggrieved  by  having  his  writings  treated  as  Doctor 
Watts  has  treated  this  psalm.  If  a  poet  were  to  select 
matter  from  the  writings  of  any  respectable  man  and 
form  it  into  sacred  songs,  under  different  heads,  it  would 
be  offering  no  indignity  at  all  to  the  writer.  And  espe- 
cially when  the  poet  knew  that  it  was  agreeable  to  the 
mind  of  the  writer,  that  he  should  do  so:  and  especially 
too,  when  the  poet  states  distinctly  what  he  has  done, 
instead  of  representing  his  own  composition  to  be  the 
work  of  the  writer  from  whom  he  has  drawn.  And  this 
is  what  Dr.  Watts  has  done.  He  never  attempted  to  foist 
his  writings  upon  the  public  for  the  word  of  God,  as 
Dr.  Pressly  does  with  Rouse's  paraphrase.  And  I  ap- 
peal to  the  sober  judgment  of  all  reflecting  men,  who 
have  read  "Dr.  Pressly  on  Psalmody/  when  I  say  he 
has  offered  great  indignity  to  the  memory  of  Dr.  Watts, 


142 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY 


by  the  fraudulent  manner  in  which  he  has  treated  the 
writings  of  this  "respectable  man."  Just  like  the  rest  of 
Psalmonistic  writers,  when  he  can  find  no  ai-guments  to 
sustain  his  own  cause,  he  turns  all  his  vengeance  upon 
Dr.  Watts.  And  occupies  not  less  than  two  chapters  in 
distorting  his  views:  in  misrepresenting  him:  in  vilify- 
ing and  abusing  his  character.  And  what  has  all  this  to 
do  with  the  subject  of  controversy'?  If  he  had  expatia- 
ted largely,  as  to  whether  the  moon  is  four-cornered,  or 
sharp  at  both  ends,  he  would  have  been  about  as  near 
to  the  point;  and  it  would  have  been  far  more  harmless 
than  what  he  has  done.  But  then  he  had  an  object  in 
view.  He  knew,  that  if  he  could  blacken  the  character 
of  Dr.  Watts,  by  representing  him  as  a  heretic  and  hater 
of  the  Bible,  it  would  prejudice  the  minds  of  very  many 
against  his  psalms  and  hymns;  and  thus  aid  in  making 
proselytes  from  the  Presbyterian  Church.  And  for  this 
purpose  he  tries  to  improve  it: — "And  I  would  propose 
a  question  for  the  serious  consideration  of  all  conscien- 
tious Christians, —  ^>oes  not  that  Church,  which  employs 
in  the  worship  of  God,  songs  prepared  on  such  a  princi- 
ple, by  her  practice,  sanction  the  contempt,  which  such 
language  reflects  upon  the  Spirit  of  Inspiration?"  Thus 
he  represents  Dr.  Watts  as  casting  contempt  upon  the 
Spirit  of  Inspiration,  and  the  Presbyterian  Church  as 
sanctioning  that  contempt;  and  then  asks  the  conscien- 
tious christian  to  look  seriously  at  the  conduct  of  this 
Church,  Indeed,  it  is  not  difficult  to  see,  at  what  the 
Doctor  is  driving,  while  defaming  so  thoroughly  the  char- 
acter of  Dr.  Watts. 

We  see  then,  there  is  no  evidence,  that  the  book  of 
Psalms  was  given  to  the  Christian  Church  to  constitute 
her  Psalmody,  Indeed  there  is  no  evidence  that  it  was 
given  even  to  the  Jewish  Church  for  this  purpose.  No 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


143 


where  throughout  the  Bible,  is  the  book  of  Psalms  ap- 
pointed to  be  the  Psalmody  of  any  church.  It  has  al- 
ways been  left  with  the  Church  to  prepare  her  own 
Psalmody;  and  to  use  what  songs,  and  what  system  of 
songs,  she  thought  proper.  David,  in  company  with 
other  prophets,  was  raised  up  by  divine  authority  to  insti- 
tute the  singing  cf  praise  as  a  part  of  public  worship  in 
the  Jewish  Church;  but  he  made  no  appointment  what- 
ever as  to  what  songs  should  be  used.  The  appointment 
made  by  David  may  be  found  in  1st  Chronicles,  chapters 
23  and  25.  And  king  Hezekiah  conformed  to  these  ap- 
pointments, as  we  are  told  in  2d  Chronicles,  29  :  25, 
"And  he  set  the  Levites  in  the  house  of  the  Lord, 
with  cymbals,  with  psalteries  and  with  harps,  according 
to  the  commandment  of  David,  and  of  Gad,  the  king's 
seer,  and  Nathan,  the  prophet;  for  so  was  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord  by  his  prophets.''  We  see  then, 
that  the  divine  appointment  was  to  sing  and  praise  with 
musical  instruments;  but  not  a  word  said  respecting 
what  songs  should  be  sung.  It  was  ordained  to  sing  and 
play  with  instruments  of  music,  but  that  is  the  extent  ; 
the  sonofs  to  be  used  are  not  even  mentioned.  And  so 
it  is  in  every  place  where  this  divine  appointment  is  re- 
ferred to,  there  is  no  intimation  that  any  system  of  songs 
were  appointed.  For  the  appointment  of  a  specific 
Psalmody  we  are  referred  to  2d  Chronicles,  29  :  30. 

Moreover,  Hezekiah  the  king,  and  the  princes,  com- 
manded the  Levites  to  sing  praise  unto  the  Lord  with 
the  words  of  David  and  of  Asaph,  the  seer."  But  there 
are  various  considerations  tending  to  show,  that  this  pas- 
sage contains  no  divine  appointment  for  the  use  of  David's 
Psalms.  And  in  the  first  place,  it  is  very  doubtful  whether 
the  common  version  is  the  correct  one.  Instead  of  a 
command  to  sing  praise  ^^with  the  words^^  of  David  and 


144 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Asaph,  it  may  be  a  command  to  sing  praise  ''^according 
to  the  commandments'^  of  David  and  Asaph ;  as  it  is 
in  2d  Chronicles,  35  :  15.  "And  the  singers,  the  sons  of 
Asaph,  were  in  their  place,  according  to  the  command- 
ment of  David,  and  Asaph,  and  Heman,  and  Jeduthun, 
the  king's  seer."  We  see,  that  these  prophets  were 
joined  in  authority  with  David  in  giving  the  divine  ordi- 
nance of  singing  praise.  And  so  the  singers  were  in 
their  place  according  to  the  commandment  of  David  and 
Asaph,  and  the  others.  And  in  like  manner  Hezekiah 
and  the  princes  may  have  commanded  the  Levites  to  sing 
praise  according  to  the  commandments  of  David  and  of 
Asaph  ;  and  not,  with  the  words  of  David  and  of  Asaph. 
The  term  rendered,  ^^with^''  is  often  rendered,  ^''accord- 
ing to,^^  as  in  the  25th  verse,  **with  psalteries,  and  with 
harps,  according  to  the  commandment  of  David  and  of 
Asaph/'  And  the  term  rendered,  ^^words,^^  frequently 
means,  authoritative  words;  that  is,  edicts,  precepts,  com- 
mands. It  is  so  rendered,  for  example,  in  Esther,  1:  19. 
"  If  it  please  the  king,  let  there  go  a  royal  commandment 
from  him.''  And  in  Ex.  34:  28.  **And  he  wrote  upon 
the  tables  the  words  of  the  covenant,  the  ten  command- 
ments,^^ And  thus  we  see,  as  far  as  the  meaning  of  the 
original  words  is  cor.cerned,  it  might  be  rendered,  accord- 
ing to  the  commandments  of  David  and  of  Asaph.  Indeed 
Gesenius  in  his  Hebrew  Lexicon  renders,  Bithvar,  ''ac- 
cording to  command;"  and  this  is  the  very  term  in  the 
text.  And  there  is  much  ground  to  believe  that  this  is 
the  true  meaning  of  the  passage.  It  is  granted,  that  the 
Jews  were  in  the  practice  of  singing  with  the  words  of 
David  and  of  Asaph,  and  why  would  Hezekiah  and  the 
princes  command  them  to  do,  what  they  were  already 
doing?  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  for  the  command; 
because  they  had  just  been  engaged  in  singing  before 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


145 


the  command  was  given.  And  I  presume  it  will  not  be 
contended  that  they  were  singing  any  thing  but  the 
Psalms  of  David.  And  if  they  were  singing  the  Psalms 
of  David,  why  command  them  to  do  it?  But  we  can 
easily  see  the  propriety  of  the  king  and  the  princes  com- 
manding the  Levites  to  perform  the  work  assigned  to 
them  by  the  authority  of  David  and  of  Asaph.  In  the 
25th  verse  we  are  told,  ''he  set  the  Levites  in  the  house 
of  the  Lord,  according  to  the  commandment  of  David 
and  of  Asaph;"  and  then,  in  the  30th  verse  we  are  told, 
he  addressed  them,  and  exhorted  them  to  discharge  the 
duty  assigned  to  them  by  this  same  authority — that  is, 
to  sing  praise  to  the  Lord  according  to  the  command- 
ments of  David  and  of  Asaph.  And  besides,  it  would 
appear  that  Hezekiah  did  not  give  a  command  exclud- 
ing the  use  of  all  but  the  words  of  David,  and  of  Asaph, 
because  he  afterwards  introduced  the  use  of  his  own 
words;  his  own  compositions  were  sung  in  the  worship 
at  the  temple.  But  the  command  he  gave  did  not  ex- 
clude the  use  of  his  own,  nor  of  Heman,  nor  of  Jedu- 
thun,  nor  of 'Moses,  nor  of  Solomon,  nor  of  Zachariah, 
nor  of  Ezra;  yet,  if  he  had  commanded  them  to  sing 
with  the  words  of  David  and  of  Asaph,  it  would  have  ex- 
cluded all  these.  But  the  command  being  to  sing  praise 
according  to  the  appointments  of  David  and  of  Asaph, 
in  obeying  the  command  they  could  use  any  songs  what- 
ever. There  is  reason  to  believe,  then,  that  this  text 
does  not  specify  any  psalmody. 

But  though  the  above  may  be  the  true  interpretation, 
yet  I  found  no  argument  upon  it.  Because  admitting, 
that  they  were  commanded  to  sing  with  the  words  of 
David  and  Asaph,  it  would  still  be  no  divine  appoint- 
ment for  the  use  of  David's  Psalms.  The  king  and  the 
princes  had  no  divine  commission  to  appoint  the  use  of 
13 


146 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


David's  Psalms.  When  they  enjoined  it  upon  the 
Levites  to  sing  with  the  words  of  David  and  of  Asaph; 
it  is  not  said,  as  in  the  25th  verse,  **for  so  was  the  com- 
mandment of  the  Lord  by  his  prophets.''  There  was 
no  commandment  of  the  Lord  for  singing  with  the 
words  of  David,  and  of  Asaph.  But  the  king  and  the 
princes  acted  according  to  what  wa  s  known  to  be  an 
established  principle  in  the  church:  namely,  that  she  was 
to  prepare  her  own  psalmody,  and  adopt  what  system  of 
songs  she  thought  proper.  On  this  principle  also  Hez- 
ekiah  introduced  his  own  songs  to  be  sung  in  the  public 
worship  at  the  temple.  He  had  no  divine  authority  for 
so  doing,  except  that  authority  which  was  given  to  the 
church  to  use  whatever  songs  of  praise  she  might  select. 
This  authority  is  implied  in  the  divine  appointment  to 
sing  praise  in  the  worship  of  God.  Neither  was  Heze- 
kiah  an  inspired  man,  nor  his  writings  inspired  composi- 
tion. One  of  his  songs  is  found  in  the  book  of  Isaiah. 
But  this  prophet  no  doubt  revised  and  moulded  it  by 
the  Spirit  of  inspiration  before  he  gave  it  as  a  part  of  the 
oracles  of  God.  The  divine  ordinance  of  singing  praise 
is  like  that  of  prayer;  they  are  both  enjoined  by  divine 
authority;  but  no  forms  are  given  for  either.  The 
Church  may  use  what  prayers  and  what  songs  she  may 
think  most  suitable.  Civil  Government  is  another  ordi- 
nance somewhat  similar,  it  is  divinely  appointed,  but  the 
people  are  left  to  adopt  what  form  they  please.  And  at 
the  same  time,  nations  are  accountable  to  God  for  the 
way  in  which  they  manage  His  ordinance;  and  so  the 
Church  is  accountable  to  God  for  the  way  in  which  she 
manages  His  ordinance  of  singing  praise.  She  ought  to 
give  great  dilligence  in  order,  that  this  part  of  religious 
worship  may  be  conducted  in  the  very  best  manner. 
And  it  is  lamentably  neglected.    And  though  no  system 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


147 


of  Psalmody  is  enjoined  upon  the  Church,  yet  it  is  her 
duty  to  have  the  best  and  most  suitable  system  provided 
and  in  use.  We  say,  that  among  all  the  divine  appoint- 
ments found  in  the  Bible  respecting  the  worship  of  God, 
there  is  not  one  determininof  what  song^s  shall  be  sunor. 
In  all  these  appointments  the  principle  is  recognized, 
that  it  is  the  province  of  the  Church  to  provide  her  own 
songs  of  praise;  and  that  she  may  adopt  whatever  sys- 
tem of  Psalmody  she  thinks  best.  If  the  book  of  Psalms 
has  been  given  to  the  Church  to  constitute  her  Psilmody, 
is  it  not  marvellously  strange,  that  there  is  not  a  hint  of 
it  throughout  the  whole  Bible.  In  all  the  countless  calls, 
requiring  us  to  sing  praise,  we  are  never  once  told  what 
songs  we  are  to  use.  Now  if  there  was  a  prescribed 
system  of  Psalmody,  this  would  be  altogether  unaccount- 
able. We  are  called  upon  to  sing,  to  sing  songs,  to  sing 
praises,  to  sing  psalms.  But  never  once  called  upon  to 
sing  the  Psalms,  or  to  sing  David's  Psalms,  or  to  sing 
the  book  of  Psalms — not  such  a  call  in  the  whole  Bible. 
Now  if  Dayid's  Psalms  were  the  divinely  appointed 
and  only  Psalms  to  be  sung,  this  is,  indeed,  the  most 
marvellous  thing  that  ever  has  been  heard  of — the  book 
of  Psalms  was  appointed  for  the  Church's  Psalmody 
and  she  has  never  once  been  told  of  it!  They  that  can 
believe  it  may!  And  yet  Dr.  Pressly  has  for  the  cap- 
tion of  one  chapter:  * 'Divine  appointment  of  the  book  of 
Psalms  to  be  used  in  the  worship  of  God."  But  such 
Divine  appointment  he  has  failed  to  find  in  the  Bible. 
All  that  he  can  produce  for  it  is,  that  the  Jews  used 
them  with  divine  approbation.  And  hence  he  might  from 
the  same  authority,  have  a  chapter  with  this  heading: 
"Divine  appointment  of  dancing  to  be  used  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God.''  Because  the  Jews  engaged  in  dancing  as 
a  religious  exercise  and  with  divine  approbation:  thus 


148 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


David  danced  before  the  ark.  And  according  to  the 
Doctor's  mode  of  reasoning  he  might  contend  that  no 
other  form  of  worship  will  be  acceptable;  and  that  sit- 
ting quiet,  is  ''offering  strange  fire  before  the  Lord/' 
And  according  to  the  Doctor's  principle  he  ought  to 
maintain,  that  Monarchy  is  the  only  divinely  appointed 
form  of  civil  government — that  Republicanism  has  no 
divine  warrant — and  to  establish  it  is  daring  presump- 
tion against  the  authority  of  Heaven.  Because  it  is 
much  clearer  from  the  Bible,  that  Monarchy  was  the  di- 
vinely appointed  civil  government  of  the  Jews,  than 
that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  thus  appointed  for  their 
Psalmody.  Then,  if  the  book  of  Psalms  must  be  our 
only  Psalmody:  Monarchy  must  be  our  only  form  of  ci- 
vil Government.  The  authority  requiring  the  latter  is 
clearer  than  the  authority  requiring  the  former.  And  it 
is  obvious,  that  the  Jewish  Church  used  the  Psalms  of 
David,  not  because  there  was  any  specific  divine  ap- 
pointment requiring  it;  but  because  it  was  her  divinely 
appointed  duty  to  sing  praise,  and  hence  her  province 
to  use  whatever  songs  she  deemed  suitable. 

And  so  the  Christian  Church  may,  no  doubt,  use  these 
psalms  with  divine  approbation ;  because  it  is  her  duty 
to  sing  praise,  and  her  province  to  provide  and  use  what- 
ever psalms  she  may  consider  proper.  That  the  Chris- 
tian Church  may  use  these  songs  there  is  no  disposition 
to  deny:  but  must  she  use  them  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
others'?  It  is  fully  admitted  that  the  Jews  used  tham, 
and  that  we  may  use  them ;  and  why  does  Dr.  Pressly 
spend  so  much  time  in  proving  what  is  not  denied?  Be- 
cause he  occupies  nearly  the  whole  of  two  chapters  in 
proving  that  the  Jews  sung  the  Psalms  of  David,  and 
that  we  may  sing  them.  But  says  scarcely  anything  on 
the  point  of  controversy,     e.  must  we  sing  them  to  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


149 


exclusion  of  all  others'?  It  is  positively  a  fact,  that  on 
this  point  he  has  hardly  anything  to  say.  After  he  has 
labored  through  eighteen  pages  to  prove  that  the  Jews 
used  these  psalms  and  that  we  ought  to  use  them,  he  de- 
votes only  four  pages  to  prove,  that  we  should  use  them 
to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  On  this  point  we  would 
have  supposed,  that  all  his  strength  and  all  his  arguments 
would  be  expended.  But  no  I  It  seems  that  all  his 
vigor;  and  assurance,  and  arguments  are  gone  when  he 
arrives  at  this  all-important  point.  And  all  he  can  say 
is  :  It  would  appear  to  be  the  divine  will,  that  this 
should  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.''  His 
confidence  is  all  gone !  After  his  long  argument  through 
eighteen  pages,  this  is  the  amount  of  his  conclusion  :  *'It 
would  appear  to"  be  so  !  He  just  reminds  us  of  the  man 
who  took  so  long  a  race  to  jump  the  ditch,  that  when  he 
came  to  it,  he  was  so  exhausted,  he  had  to  sit  down,  and 
could  not  get  over.  Just  so  with  the  Doctor — while  he 
is  proving  that  the  Jews  used  David's  Psalms,  and  that 
we  may  and  ought  to  use  them,  he  seems  to  get  along 
swimingly,  no  let  or  hindrance  impedes  his  way;  but 
when  he  comes  to  prove,  that  the  Christian  Church  ought 
to  use  them  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others — there  he  sticks 
fast !  He  has  run  with  all  his  speed  right  up  against 
the  pons  assinoritm — -and  there  he  is — over  he  cannot 
get!  Any  one  who  looks  into  his  book  may  see  it.  It 
is  perfectly  obvious,  that  where  he  needed  arguments 
he  had  none;  nor  could  he  get  any.  And  his  want  of 
argument,  on  the  point  to  be  proved,  amounts  to  a  moral 
certainty,  that  the  point  is  not  susceptible  of  proof.  If 
there  was  any  proof  for  it  he  would  have  had  it;  for  his 
whol-^^iuse  depends  on  this  point :  Should  the  Christian 
Chu  %  be  confined  to  the  book  of  Psalms?  To  prove 
this /-J  the  design  of  his  whole  work.  And  when 
f  23* 


150 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


comes  directly  to  the  point,  his  lips  are  almost  sealed, 
he  has  scarcely  a  word  to  say.  He  can  bring  arguments 
neither  from  Scripture,  nor  from  reason,  nor  from  com- 
mon sense,  nor  from  history,  nor  from  any  other  source! 
And  this  shows  that  his  notion  is  utterly  without  founda- 
tion— no  more  defensible,  than  that  **the  moon  is  made  of 
green  cheese!"  He  could  offer  as  much  proof  for  the 
one  as  he  has  done  for  the  other.  And  it  w^ould  be  a 
good  deal  like  what  he  has  done,  were  he  to  start  with 
this  proposition  :  "  The  moon  is  beautiful,  and  is  made  of 
green  cheese ;"  and  labor  through  eighteen  pages  to 
prove  that  she  is  heautiful,  and  then  occupy  only  four 
pages  in  proving  that  she  is  nothing  but  a  cheese.  In 
proving  what  needs  no  proof  his  arguments  are  abund- 
ant: but  in  proving  what  needs  proof,  his  arguments  are 
very  scanty.  Yel  he  could  offer  the  same  kind,  and 
more  abundant  proof  for  the  moon's  being  cheese  than 
he  offers  for  his  own  notion.  His  own  notion  '^appeai's^^ 
to  be  the  correct  one ;  and  the  moon  api^ears  to  be  a 
cheese.  A  cheese  is  of  a  circular  form,  and  the  moon 
a])j)ears  to  be  circular.  A  cheese  is  a  kind  of  whitish 
color;  and  the  m.oou  appears  to  be  a  kind  of  whitsih 
color.  A  cheese  has  a  flat  face  ;  and  the  moon  appears 
to  have  a  flat  face.  And  cheeses  vary  in  size ;  and  the 
moon  appears  to  vary  in  size  too.  And  the  proof  is  con- 
clusive— yes,  more  abundant,  and  more  conclusive,  than 
what  the  Doctor  has  offered  in  support  of  his  own  favor- 
ite notion.  It  is  heartless  work  for  a  man  to  undertake 
to  prove  that  for  which  there  is  no  proof.  And  that  is 
the  work  undertaken  by  those  who  endeavor  to  show, 
that  by  divine  appointment,  the  Christian  Church,  in  her 
worship,  ought  to  sing  nothing  but  the  Psalms  of,  ©avid. 

And  after  all  the  Doctor  has  said,  in  relation  to  the  use 
of  the  book  of  Psalms,  I  apprehend  it  will  be  rather 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


151 


difficult  to  find  out  what  he  really  does  believe.  He 
says  he  believes  it  to  be  the  v^ill  of  God  that  these 
should  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others.  And 
then,  he  says,  he  does  not  precisely  believe  this,  for  he 
considers  it  a  matter  of  little  importance  whether  these 
be  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others  or  not.  P.  69, 
While  I  decidedly  concur  with  those  who  plead  for 
the  exclusive  use  of  the  book  of  Psalms,  I  do  not  think 
that  this  diversity  of  opinion  [from  those  who  plead  for 
other  Scripture  songs]  should  give  rise  to  any  difficulty 
in  the  Church  of  God."  That  is,  in  his  opinion,  it  is  of 
little  importance  whether  we  obey  the  will  of  God  or 
not.  It  is  the  will  of  God  that  we  should  use  the  Psalms 
exclusively;  but  whether  we  do  so  or  not  is  of  little  mo- 
ment! This  is  theology!  Aye  too,  and  he  everywhere 
insists  upon  it,  that  the  will  of  God,  in  this  matter,  is 
our  only  rule ;  And  points  us  to  the  awful  doom  of 
Nadab  and  Abihu  for  disobeying  the  divine  will.  Now 
does  he  believe  that  the  will  of  God  is,  that  we  should 
use  the  Psalms  of  David  exclusively,  or  does  he  not? 
See  his  pp.  69  and  68.  On  p.  47,  he  says,  ^'  The  songs 
contained  in  the  book  of  Revelation  were  given  to  the 
Church  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  And  I  suppose  when  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  pleased  to  communicate  to  his  Church,  by 
the  ministry  of  one  of  his  servants,  a  song  of  praise  to 
be  employed  in  the  worship  of  God,  no  one  will  deny,  that 
she  may  with  propriety  use  it."  And  he  afterwards  de- 
nies it  himself;  p.  88  :  "  The  fact  that  God  has  provided 
for  his  Church  a  collection  of  sacred  songs,  which  he 
himself  has  denominated  '  The  Book  of  Psalms,'  is  with 
me,  a  conclusive  reason,  why  these  songs  should  be  used 
in  the  worship  of  God,  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others." 
He  believes  that  the  songs  contained  in  Revelations  may 
be  used  with  propriety;  and  he  believes  they  should  not 


152 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


be  used !  He  believes,  that  God  gave  them  to  his 
Church  to  be  employed  in  his  worship;  and  he  believes 
it  is  the  wi]\  of  God  that  they  should  not  be  so  employ- 
ed !  For  he  believes,  it  is  the  v^ill  of  God  that  the  book 
of  Psalms  should  be  used  exclusively,  p.  87.  This  is 
just  like  when  he  asserts  over  and  over,  that  the  point  of 
controversy  is  about  using  hymns :  and  then  asserts  over 
and  over,  that  the  point  of  controversy  is  not  shout  using, 
but  about  making  of  hymns.  And  does  he  believe, 
that  the  controversy  is  about  making  or  about  using 
them?  And  after  he  tells  us,  on  p.  47,  that  the  songs  in  the 
book  of  Revelation  **  Were  given  to  the  Church  by  the 
Holy  Spirit,  and  are  part  of  the  sacred  volume.''  On  p. 
97,  he  says,  **One  thing,  however,  is  certain,  that  neither 
our  Lord,  nor  his  Apostles,  have  furnished  any  psalms 
or  songs  in  the  New  Testament  for  the  use  of  the 
Church."  In  the  one  he  tells  us,  there  are  songs  in  the 
New  Testament  given  for  the  use  of  the  Church :  in  the 
other  he  tells  us  there  are  no  songs  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment given  for  the  use  of  the  Church !  He  believes 
there  are  songs  there  for  the  use  of  the  Church  ;  but  he 
believes  there  are  no  songs  there  for  the  use  of  the 
Church  !  He  believes  the  Spirit  gave  those  songs  for 
the  use  of  the  Church ;  but  he  believes  the  Spirit  did 
not  give  them  for  the  use  of  the  Church  !  This  is  a  speci- 
men of  the  way  he  agrees  with  himself.  And  could  any 
one  unravel  him?  Is  he  not  the  paradox  of  paradoxes? 
And  who  could  make  out  the  Doctor's  creed  on  Psalmody? 
He  believes  this,  and  believes  that ;  but  he  does  not  be- 
lieve this,  and  he  does  not  believe  that;  and  truly  it 
would  take  a  philosopher  to  tell  what  he  does  believe. 
His  creed  on  this  subject  is  about  as  tangible  as  that  of  the 
honest  Roman  Catholic,  who,  when  asked  what  he  be- 
lieved, answered,  ^'I  believe  what  the  Church  believes;" 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


153 


and  when  asked,  what  does  the  Church  believel  answer- 
ed, "The  Church  believes  what  I  believe;*'  and  when 
asked  again,  what  is  it  you  and  the  Church  both  believel 
he  answered,  We  both  believe  the  very  same  thing." 
And  so  it  is  with  Dr.  Pressly  on  this  subject.  He  be- 
lieves precisely  what  he  believes,  and  nothing  else ! 
And  is  it  possible  for  him  to  make  his  congregation  com- 
prehend what  he  believes,  or  what  they  ought  to  believel 
On  one  point,  I  suppose,  he  is  clear  and  decided,  name- 
ly— That  by  "Divine  Appointment,"  they  are  using 
Rouse's  Paraphrase  in  the  Worship  of  God! 


CHAPTER  VI. 


The  Psalms  of  Dayid  Not  giyen  to  the  New  Testament 
Church  to  constitute  her  Psalmody,  because  they  are 
not  sufficient. 

The  opinion  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  given  to 
constitute  the  Psalmody  of  the  Chnrch,  w^e  have  seen,  is 
erroneous.  And  it  is  the  fundamental  error  vs^hich  runs 
through  Dr.  Pressly's  work  on  this  subject.  Nearly  all 
his  arguments,  in  one  form  or  another,  are  based  upon 
this  groundless  assumption.  The  very  thing  to  be 
proved  he  assumes  to  be  granted;  and  argues  from  it 
just  as  though  he  was  arguing  from  something  known 
to  be  true.  And  in  this  way  he  deceives  his  readers  by 
drawing  conclusions  from  false  premises.  If  he  had 
first  proved  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  given  to  con- 
stitute the  church's  psalmody,  he  might  have  drawn 
from  it  strong  and  valid  arguments  for  the  exclusive  use 
of  the  book  of  Psalms.  But  he  knew  he  could  not  prove 
this,  and  to  answer  his  end  he  must  assume  it,  though 
there  is  not  a  hint  of  it,  in  either  the  Old  or  New  Tes- 
tament. And  the  New  Testament  is  very  explicit  in 
teaching,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  not  given  for  the 
psalmody  of  the  church,  but  for  our  learning,  that  we 
through  patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures,  might 
have  hope.  And  the  sacred  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment quote  very  frequently  from  the  Psalms,  yet  in  all 
these  quotations,  there  is  not  the  most  distant  hint,  that 
the  book  of  Psalms  is  the  psalmody  of  the  church,  or 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY.  155 

that  it  was  given  for  this  purpose;  nor  any  intimation  that 
they  ought  to  be  sung  by  the  church.  Indeed  the  idea, 
that  the  church  ought  to  sing  the  word  of  God,  seems  to 
be  foreign  to  the  Scriptures.  The  word  of  God,  is  never 
any  where  spoken  of  in  this  aspect;  nor  any  portion  of 
it,  as  the  portion  which  is  to  be  sung.  It  is  always  spo- 
ken of  as  given  for  a  different  purpose.  The  Saviour 
says,  ^'Search  the  Scriptures,''  implying  that  the  Scrips 
tures  were  given  for  our  learning,  not  for  our  singing. 
He  never  says,  Sing  the  Scriptures,  nor  even,  ''Sing  the 
Psalms,"  a  portion  of  the  Scriptures.  He  never  inti- 
mates, that  they  were  given  for  that  purpose.  And  so 
the  Apostle  Paul,  in  speaking  of  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures,  says,  "Whatsoever  things  were  written  afore- 
time, were  written  for  our  learning,''  and  not  for  our 
singing.  And  also,  "All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspira- 
tion of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof, 
for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness;  that  the 
man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
all  good  works."  He  never  intimates  that  all  Scrip- 
ture, or  that  any  Scripture,  is  profitable  for  singing;  or 
that  any  portion  of  it  was  given,  that  the  man  of  God 
might  be  furnished  with  an  inspired  system  of  Psalmody, 
This  is  Dr.  Pressly's  doctrine,  but  it  is  not  the  doctrine 
of  the  Bible.  And  in  like  manner,  the  Apostle  Peter,  in 
speaking  of  the  Old  Testament,  says,  **We  have  also,  a 
more  sure  word  of  prophecy,  whereunto  ye  do  well  that  ye 
take  heed,  as  unto  a  light  that  shineth  in  a  dark  place." 
No  hint  here  either,  that  a  portion  of  the  Old  Testament 
was  given  for  our  singing,  or  for  "the  specific  end  that 
it  might  be  employed  in  singing  God's  praise."  This  is 
Dr.  Pressly's  doctrine,  but  we  find  nothing  like  it,  from 
Christ  and  his  Apostles.  They  all  teach,  that  the  book 
of  Psalms  was  given  for  a  different  purpose.  And  when 


156  MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 

• 

Christ  and  his  Apostles  make  known  the  specific  end  for 
which  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  were  given  us,  does 
it  not  look  like  presumption  to  contradict  them,  and 
maintain  that  a  portion  of  them  was  given  not  for  this, 
but  for  another  "specific  end]"  And  when  the  word  of 
God  assures  us,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  not  given 
for  the  specific  purpose  of  constituting  the  church's  psal- 
mody, is  not  that  conduct  very  reprehensible  which  as- 
sumes, that  it  was,  and  then  proceeds  to  argue  from  this 
unwarranted  assumption'?  But  the  Doctor  was  in  pre- 
cisely those  circumstances,  when  it  is  necessary  to  as- 
sume, instead  of  prove.  For  had  he  been  required  to 
prove,  he  must  have  stopped  short:  but  let  him  assume 
and  he  can  make  out  to  manufacture  an  argument.  But 
we  cannot  grant  his  assumption,  for  this  would  be  yield- 
ing the  point  in  debate.  Because,  if  the  book  of  Psalms 
was  given  to  be  the  Psalmody  of  the  church,  there  is 
an  end  to  the  controversy.  If  the  Doctor  had  proved 
this  he  might  then  have  laid  down  his  pen,  because  the 
work  would  have  been  finished:  and  the  many  arguments 
he  has  based  upon  his  assumption  would  have  been  use- 
less. But  he  assumes  the  thing  to  be  proved,  and  then 
argues  that  it  must  be  correct,  just  because  it  has  been 
assumed.  And  the  assumption  is  its  own  proof.  But  if 
the  assumption  be  true,  that  is,  if  it  be  admitted  on  all 
sides,  there  is  no  use  in  any  arguing  to  prove  what  is  al- 
ready admitted.  And  if  it  be  admitted,  that  God  has 
provided  a  system  of  Psalmody  for  his  church,  there  is 
no  use  in  arguing,  from  this  admission,  that  he  has.  And 
this  is  the  nature  of  a  good  deal  of  the  Doctor's  reason- 
ing, he  takes  it  for  granted  that  God  has  provided  a  book 
of  Psalms  for  his  church,  and  from  that,  argues  that  he 
has.  Any  man  that  carefully  reads  his  work  will  see  that 
this  is  the  case.    But  from  the  fact,  that  there  is  no  in- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


157 


timation  any  where  in  the  word  of  God,  that  the  book 
of  Psalms  was  given  to  constitute  the  churches  psal- 
mody, we  may  very  safely  conclude,  that  it  was  not  giv- 
en for  that  purpose;  for  if  it  had  been  given  for  that  pur- 
pose, it  is  reasonable  to  believe  that  the  church  would 
have,  in  some  way  or  other  been  notified  thereof. 

But  again:  there  is  another  fact  which  proves  beyond 
dispute  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  not  designed  to  be 
the  church's  Psalmody;  and  it  is,  that  in  the  apostolic 
age,  the  church  was  not  confined  to  these  Psalms. 
We  learn  this,  not  from  any  doubtful  history;  but  from 
the  unerring  word  of  truth,  1  Cor.  14:  26.  *'How  is  it 
then  brethren]  when  ye  come  together  every  one  of  you 
hath  a  psalm,  hath  a  doctrine,  hath  a  tongue,  hath  a  rev- 
elation, hath  an  interpretation.  Let  all  things  be  done  un- 
to edifying."  The  notion  that  the  Apostle  reproved  the 
Corinthians  for  having  a  psalm,  a  doctrine,  etc.,  is  so  ob- 
viously contrary  to  the  truth,  that  it  needs  no  refutation. 
He  would  not  have  reproved  them  for  having  what  the 
Holy  Spirit  bestowed  upon  them.  But  he  could  reprove 
them  for  the  unseasonable  exercise  of  the  gifts  of  the 
Spirit,  He  could  not  reprove  them  for  the  gifts,  which 
in  the  first  verse  he  told  them  to  desire;  and  which  he 
said  were  given  to  them  for  the  profit  and  edification  of 
the  church;  ch.  12:  7.  When  these  christians  came  to- 
gether in  the  public  congregation,  one  would  have  a 
psalm,  another  a  doctrine,  another  a  revelation,  etc.,  and 
each  was  anxious  to  exhibit  his  own,  and  perhaps  they 
were  engaged  in  various  exercises  at  the  same  time;  and 
hence  the  disorder  for  which  the  Apostle  reproved  them. 
They  had  psalms,  then,  but  they  were  not  taken  from 
the  book  of  Psalms;  they  were  composed  by  themselves 
under  the  supernatural  influences  of  the  Spirit.  These 
psalms  were  brought  to  the  church:  these  psalms  were 
14 


158 


MORTON   ON  PSALMODY. 


used  in  the  church;  and  the  proof  is  positive,  that  the 
church  was  not  then  confined  to  the  use  of  David's 
Psalms.  If  the  Look  of  Psalms  had  been  the  church's 
Psalmody,  the  Apostle  would  not  have  suffered  such  a 
thing.  The  church  at  that  time  needed  the  enlighten- 
ment of  Dr.  Pressly:  he  would  have  shown  them,  that 
they  were  all  wrong,  for  they  must  bring  no  psalms  into 
the  public  congregation,  but  those  found  in  the  book  of 
Psalms.  The  Apostle  lived  too  early  to  enjoy  the  light 
of  these  latter  times!  What  a  pity,  that  Dr.  Pressly 
was  not  there  to  instruct  him!  The  Doctor  would  not 
have  tolerated  such  an  irregularity.  And  if  the  Apostle 
had  been  the  same  kind  of  a  champion,  for  the  same 
kind  of  truth,  he  would  not  have  tolerated  it  either.  And 
if  the  church  under  the  immediate  care  of  the  Apostles 
was  not  confined  to  the  book  of  Psalms,  why  should  she 
be  confined  to  it  now?  If  the  book  of  Psalms  did  not 
furnish  psalms  enough  for  the  use  of  the  church  then, 
why  should  we  suppose  that  it  furnishes  psalms  enough 
for  the  use  of  the  church  now?  The  book  of  Psalms 
was  as  complete  then  as  it  is  now:  and  if  the  church 
then  needed  psalms  additional  to  these,  so  she  still  needs 
them. 

And  it  is  worthy  of  especial  notice,  that  these  Psalms 
composed  by  the  Christians  of  Corinth  were  given  by 
the  Holy  Spirit.  Cor.  12  :  8—11.  For  to  one  is  given 
by  the  Spirit,  the  word  of  wisdom ;  to  another  the  word 
of  knowledge,  by  the  same  Spirit;  to  another  faith,  by 
the  same  Spirit ;  to  another  the  gifts  of  healing,  by  the 
same  Spirit;  to  another  the  working  of  miracles ;  to 
another  prophecy:  to  another  discerning  of  spirits;  to 
another  divers  kinds  of  tongues;  to  another  the  inter- 
pretation of  tongues ;  but  all  these  worketh  that  one  and 
the  same  Spirit,  dividing  tS3  every  one  severally,  as  he 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


159 


will."    And  these  supernatural  gifts  were  given  by  the 
Spirit  for  the  edification  of  the  Church ;  verse  7 :  "  But 
the  manifestation  of  the  Spirit  is  given  to  every  man  to 
profit  withal."  Then,  in  14  :  26,  we  are  told,  that  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Church,  the  Spirit  gave  to  some  doctrines; 
to  others  tongues ;  to  others  revelations ;  to  others  inter- 
pretations^ and  to  others  psalms.    Now  if  the  book  of 
Psalms  was  the  prescribed  and  sufficient  Psalmody  of 
the  Church,  why  did  the  Spirit  give  new  additional 
Psalms]    If  Dr.  Pressly  is  correct,  the  Spirit  of  God 
was  mistaken  !    It  was  the  mind  of  the  Spirit  that  more 
Psalms  were  needed  for  the  edification  of  the  Church, 
or  He  would  not  have  given  more  ;  but  Dr.  Pressly, 
everywhere,  teaches  that  more  psalms  were  not  needed. 
P.  86.  "And  by  the  instrumentality  of  a  man,  (David) 
whom  God  called  to  the  work  and  fitted  for  it,  a  collec- 
tion of  sacred  songs  has  been  communicated  to  the 
Church,  which  Christians  all  over  the  world,  in  every 
age,  have  found  from  comfortable  experience,  to  be  ad- 
mirably adapted  to  the  end  for  which  it  was  given."  Here 
he  says,  Christians  all  over  the  world,  in  every  age  need 
none  other  than  the  book  of  Psalms;  hence  those  Christians 
to  whom  the  Holy  Spirit  gave  other  Psalms  did  not  need 
them !    The  Spirit  of  God  believed  that  these  Psalms 
were  requisite  for  the  edification  of  the  Church  ;  but  the 
Doctor  knows  better  !    He  can  tell  the  Spirit,  that  it  was 
a  useless  work  for  him  to  communicate  any  psalms  be- 
sides those  they  had  already!    And  his  charging  the 
Spirit  of  God  with  folly  is  implied  in  numerous  pas- 
sages.   Hear  him  again,  on  p.  89.    "  God  has  not  only 
provided  for  his  Church  songs  of  praise,  but  he  has  given 
her  a  book  of  Psalms.    It  is  perfect,  not  only  in  its 
parts,  but  as  a  system  of  praise,  and  it  needs  no  addi- 
tion."   The  Holy  Spirit,  by  giving  additional  psalms, 


160 


MORTO.X  OX  PSALMODY. 


taught,  that  the  book  of  Psahiis  was  not  enough — that  it 
needed  addition.  But  Dr.  Pressly  asserts  positively,  that 
it  is  enough — "it  is  perfect,  and  needs  no  addition.*' 
It  is  extraordinary  to  see  a  "sinful  mortal"  undertaking 
to  contradict  and  iustructthe  God  who  made  him!  Into 
\vhat  impious  folly  men  are  led,  by  contending  for  erron- 
eous opinions  I  And  besides  impeaching  the  Spirit  of 
Infinite  \Visdom  with  folly,  he  also  asserts  directly  the 
opposite  of  what  is  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  by 
denvine.  that  the  Soirit  of  Psalmodv  was  amonsf  the  as- 
ceiision  eifts  of  the  Redeemer,  P.  56,  "And  when  our 
glorious  Lord,  vrith  whom  is  the  residue  of  the  Spirit, 
arose  from  the  dead  and  ascended  up  far  above  all 
heavens,  thiat  he  might  fill  all  things;  and  gave  some 
evano-elists  ;  and  some  pastors  and  teachers  ;  for  the  per- 
fecting of  t]]e  saints,  for  the  edifying  of  the  body  of 
Christ;  if  it  had  been  necessary  for  the  edification  of 
his  Church,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose,  that  among 
other  gifts,  he  would  have  conferred  the  spirit  of  Psalm- 
ody T'  Thus  he  teaches,  that  the  Spirit  of  Psalmody 
was  not  given,  whiie  it  is  stated  distinctly,  that  it  was 
one  of  the  gifts  communicated  by  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit,  He  fiatly  denies  v/hat  is  revealed  in  the  word 
of  God.  And  he  represents  the  ascended  Redeemer  as 
not  bestowing^  the  very  eift  which  the  Word  says  He  did 
bestow,  and  thus  slanders  his  exalted  Saviour.  Does 
the  Doctor  believe  that  he  is  a  Popish  priest,  and  that  he 
is  writingr  for  Roman  Catholics,  who  never  see  the  Bible? 
when  he  can  so  deliberately  falsify  the  word  of  God] — 
Xo  :  But  I  suppose  I  should  recollect,  that  he  is  clothed 
with  authority;  and  these  are  some  of  his  oflScial  dogmatay 
while  acting  "in  the  name  of  the  Protestant  Church  of 
Christ."  How  very  advantageous  it  is,  to  be  supreme, 
that  a  man  can  just  say  what  he  pleases  I    He  says  indeed, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


161 


But  amonof  the  various  services  to  w^hicli  individuals 
w^ere  called  by  the  Head  of  the  Church,  and  for  which 
he  qualified  them,  by  imparting  to  them  the  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  the  preparation  of  a  system  of  Psalmody  for 
the  edification  of  the  body  of  Christ  is  never  mentioned." 
He  thinks  this  will  justify  him  in  representing  the  ascend- 
ed Redeemer  as  not  giving  the  Spirit  of  Psalmody.  But 
the  Bible  tells  us,  that  he  did  give  the  Spirit  of  Psalmody, 
though  the  jprejparation  of  a  system  of  Psalmody  is  never 
mentioned.  The  preparation  of  a  system  of  doctrines* 
or  of  revelations,  or  of  interpretations,  is  never  men- 
tioned, yet  these  were  among  the  gifts  of  the  Spirit;  and 
so  the  Spirit  of  Psalmody  was  given,  though  the  pre- 
paration of  a  system  of  Psalmody  is  never  mentioned. 
And  what  did  the  ascended  Redeemer  teach  his  Church 
by  giving  to  her  his  Spirit,  as  the  spirit  of  doctrine,  of 
revelation,  and  of  interpretation?  Obviously  he  taught 
her,  that  though  she  had  the  doctrines,  and  interpreta- 
tions, and  revelations  of  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures, 
yet  she  needed  others  additional.  And  so  he  taught  her, 
by  giving  to  her  the  Spirit  of  Psalmody,  that  though  she 
had  the  book  of  Psalms,  yet  she  needed  others  in  addi- 
tion to  these.  This  matter  is  positively  beyond  all  con- 
troversy :  if  the  Redeemer  had  not  considered  his  Church 
as  needing  additional  psalms.  He  never  would  have  given 
her  additional  psalms,  by  the  direct  influence  of  his  Spirit. 
If  his  Spirit  had  not  been  needed  as  the  Spirit  of  Psalm- 
ody, he  never  would  have  given  it  as  such  to  the  primi- 
tive Christians.  But,  by  giving  these  additional  psalms, 
he  taught  the  Church  that  her  system  of  Psalmody  was 
not  yet  completed;  just  as  by  giving  additional  doc- 
trines, he  taught  the  Church  that  her  system  of  doctrines 
was  not  yet  completed.  And  as  the  Church's  system  of 
doctrines,  her  Creed,  or  Confession  of  Faith,  is  drawn 
14* 


162 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


from,  and  founded  upon  the  word  of  God,  by  the  labors 
of  uninspired  men,  so  her  system  of  Psalmody  is  to  be 
provided  in  the  same  manner.  And  she  is  no  more  re- 
quired to  adopt  any  portion  of  the  word  of  God  for  her 
system  of  Psalmody,  than  she  is  required  to  adopt  the 
Bible  for  her  Confession  of  Faith.  And  from  this  ac- 
count, that  we  have  of  the  primitive  Christians  compos- 
ing and  bringing  Psalmy  into  the  public  congregation, 
and  that  by  the  influences  of  the  Spirit,  the  matter  is 
completely  settled,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  not  giv- 
en to  the  church  to  constitute  her  psalmody. 

I  know  it  may  be  objected,  that  these  psalms  were 
composed  by  the  extraordinary  influences  of  the  Spirit, 
and  these  influences  being  withheld,  there  are  none  now 
qualified  to  compose  psalms  for  the  use  of  the  church. 
But  this  objection  is  not  valid:  for  if  it  were,  there  would 
be  none  now  qualified  to  perform  any  office  in  the  church. 
Because  it  appears,  that  at  the  time  these  psalms  were 
given  all  the  various  functionaries  in  the  church  were 
qualified  with  supernatural  endowments.  This  is  obvi- 
ous from  the  12,  c.  of  2.  Cor.  taken  in  all  its  parts.  The 
Apostle  having  shuwn  that  there  were  diversities  of  gifts 
by  the  Spirit,  then  says  that  God  hath  set  them  in  the 
church;  *'First  apostles;  secondarily  prophets;  thirdly 
teachers;  after  that  miracles;  then  gifts  of  healing,  helps, 
governments,  diversities  of  tongues. All  these  various 
functions  were  then  exercised  in  the  church  by  the  aid  of 
supernatural  endowments.  But  now  these  endowments 
are  withheld,  yet  some  of  these  functions  may,  and  are 
still  exercised.  And  if  it  be  asked,  What  of  them  may 
now  be  exercised?  I  would  say,  Just  all  of  them  that 
can.  And  this  is  a  very  simple  rule  by  which  to  deter- 
mine how  many  of  the  various  functions,  exercised  in 
the  apostolic  church,  may  still  be  continued.    There  is 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


163 


no  prohibition  to  the  exercise  of  any  function  that  had 
place  in  the  apostolic  church.  No  function  has  ceased 
because  it  was  forbidden,  but  simply  because  it  could 
not  be  exercised.  The  nature  of  each  function  fixed  the 
limit  of  its  own  duration.  If  supernatural  endowments 
were  essential  to  the  exercise  of  any  function,  whenever 
these  were  withheld  it  ceased  to  exist;  not  by  prohi- 
bition, but  by  necessity.  The  function  of  an  Apostle: 
of  a  prophet:  of  him  that  wrought  miracles:  of  him  that 
spake  with  tongues,  etc.,  were  of  this  kind.  They  have 
ceased  in  the  church,  because  the  supernatural  endow- 
ments essential  to  their  exercise  are  withheld.  But  this 
is  the  only  thing  that  forbids  their  exercise.  They  may 
still  be  exercised  if  they  can.  If  a  man  can  prophesy 
he  may:  if  a  man  can  speak  with  tongues,  he  may:  if  a 
man  can  work  miracles,  he  may.  The  church  may  still 
call  these  functions  into  requisition  if  they  be  within  her 
reach.  And  so,  the  function  of  him,  who  was  then  a 
teacher  by  the  aid  of  supernatural  endowments,  may 
still  be  exercised  if  it  can:  and  it  is.  And  the  functions 
of  those  who  were  then  helps:  governments,'* — say 
elders  and  deacons, — may  still  be  exercised  if  they  can: 
and  they  are.  And  the  function  of  him,  who  then  by  the 
Spirit  of  psalmody,  composed  psalms,  may  still  be  exer- 
cised if  it  can:  and  it  is.  The  church  may  call  into  exer- 
cise this  function  whenever  it  may  be  requisite.  The  fact 
that  at  the  organization  of  the  Christian  Church,  her  exalt- 
ed King  and  Head,  by  liis  Spirit  qualified  some,  for  the 
work  of  composing  psalms,  authorizes  her  in  all  subse- 
quent time,  to  call  into  exercise  this  function,  if  it  be  still 
within  her  reach.  Its  exercise  ilieUy  is  her  warrant  for  its 
exercise  in  all  time  future,  if  the  requisite  qualifications 
are  still  possessed.  And  thus  we  see  that  though  all 
these  functions  were  then  exercised  under  supernatural 


164 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


influences,  yet  those  of  them,  to  which  these  influences 
were  not  essential,  may  still  be  exercised,  while  these  in- 
fluences are  now  withheld.  The  function  of  teaching, 
of  ruling,  and  of  composing  psalms  are  of  this  descrip- 
tion. And  this  passage  of  Scripture  proves  beyond  all 
controversy  that  the  church  is  not  to  be  confined  to  the 
book  of  Psalms:  and  that  it  does  not  constitute  her  psal- 
mody: that  it  was  not  given  for  this  end;  and  that  it  is 
the  province  of  the  church  to  prepare  her  own  psalmody, 
just  as  she  may  consider  most  suitable  for  her  own  edifi- 
cation. When  Dr.  Pressly  was  discussing  the  whole 
ground,  why  did  he  pass  over  this  text  in  silence?  Ob- 
viously because  he  was  afraid  of  it.  Had  he  considered 
himself  competent  to  dispose  of  ir,  he  would,  no  doubt, 
have  made  the  attempt. 

But  again:  there  is  another  consideration  which 
proves,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  not  given  to  the 
church  to  constitute  her  Psalmody.  It  is,  that  in  prophe- 
cy she  is  represented  as  using  songs  of  praise  the  matter 
of  which  is  not  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  It  is 
admitted,  that  John  in  the  isle  of  Patmos,  in  prophetic 
vision,  had  the  church  presented  to  his  view.  The  scene 
of  the  visions,  is  in  heaven,  but  the  church  on  earth  is 
the  object  presented  by  these  visions.  John  is  made  to 
behold  her,  in  her  sufferings,  her  conflicts,  her  triumphs, 
and  rejoicings,  even  from  her  rise  down  to  the  end  of 
time.  In  the  5th  ch.  of  Revelations,  this  church  is  rep- 
resented as  singing  a  song  of  praise,  the  matter  of  which 
is  not  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  "And  they  sung  a  new 
song,  saying.  Thou  art  worthy  to  take  the  book  and  to 
open  the  seals  thereof,  for  thou  wast  slain,  and  hast  re- 
deemed us  to  God  by  thy  blood,  out  of  every  kindred 
and  tongue  and  people  and  nation;  and  hast  made  us 
unto  our  God,  kings  and  priests,  and  we  shall  reign  on 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


165 


the  earth."  Dr,  Scott  says,  This  song  is  new,  both  in  re- 
spect of  the  occasion,  and  also  of  the  composition.  It  is 
not  called  a  new  song  merely  because  it  is  sung  upon  a 
new  occasion,  but  because  the  composition  is  new:  it 
contains  new  matter:  matter  not  contained  in  any  song 
used  before  that  time,  in  the  church.  It  is  perfectly  ob- 
vious, that  the  ideas  contained  in  this  song  are  not  to  be 
found  any  where  in  the  book  of. Psalms. — "Thou  art  wor- 
thy." Who?  "The  Lamb."  And  who  is  the  Lambi 
**The  next  day  John  seeth  Jesus  coming  imto  him,  and 
saith,  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world."  Thou  the  Lamb — Thou  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  art  worthy.  Here  the  man  Jesus,  the  Son  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  is  represented  as  a  Lamb;  but  there 
is  no  such  idea  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  The  Psalms  never 
speak  of  the  man  Jesus.  They  speak  often  of  the  Messiah 
the  Redeemer;  but  no  where  reveal  that  Jesus  of  Naz- 
areth is  that  Messiah:  that  Redeemer.  But  in  this  song 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  spoken  of.  Here  the  church  is  rep- 
resented as  addressing  .Jesus.  **Thou  art  worthy."  But 
there  is  no  such  idea  in  the  Psalms.  The  church  is  not 
represented  any  where  in  the  Psalms  as  saying  to  Jesus, 
"thou  art  worthy,  to  open  the  book,  for  thou  wast  slain." 
The  church  is  not  represented  as  saying  to  any  one, 
"Thou  wast  slain;"  nor  "Thou  hast  redeemed  us  to  God 
by  thy  blood;"  nor,  ''Thou  hast  redeemed  us  out  of  every 
kindred  and  tongue  and  people  and  nation."  These, 
and  many  other  ideas  contained  in  this  song,  are  not 
found  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  And  a  song  having  these 
ideas,  would  not  be  any  one  of  the  Psalms  of  David, 
But  we  are  told  here,  that  the  church  actually  uses 
songs  of  this  kind.  Songs  containing  matter  not  found 
in  the  Psalms;  and  hence,  songs  that  are  none  of  those 
Psalms.    We  do  not  suppose,  that  the  church  ever  sings 


166 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


this  song  in  this  identical  form;  but  that  she  uses  songs 
of  this  hind;  with  this  matter;  containing  these  ideas.  It 
teaches  us,  that  the  primitive  church  was  in  the  practice 
of  using  songs  of  praise  of  this  description.  Songs  in 
which  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  magnified  and  exalted  ! 
Songs  in  which  they  ascribed  all  worth,  and  power,  to 
the  man  who  was  crucified  and  who  was  contemptuous- 
ly spoken  of  by  their  enemies  as  "the  dead  god."  This 
kind  of  songs  of  praise  the  Christian  church  sings,  and 
hence  she  is  not  confined  to  the  book  of  Psalms.  And 
by  the  testimony  of  prophecy  these  Psalms  were  not  de- 
signed to  constitute  the  Psalmody  of  the  church. 

In  the  15th  chapter  the  church  is  presented,  as  enga- 
ged in  singing  another  song  of  praise.  "And  I  saw  as 
it  were  a  sea  of  glass  mingled  with  fire;  and  them  that 
had  gotten  the  victory  over  the  beast,  *  *  *  stand 
on  the  sea  of  glass,  having  the  harps  of  God.  And  they 
sing  the  song  of  Moses  the  servant  of  God,  and  the  song 
of  the  Lamb;  saying,  Great  and  marvellous  are  thy 
works.  Lord  God  Almighty,  ^  #  #  f^^  j}jy  judg- 
ments are  made  manifest."  This  is  obviously  a  song  of 
thanksgiving  for  the  deliverance  of  the  church  and  the 
destruction  of  her  enemies.  It  is  sung  by  those  who  had 
gotten  the  victory  over  the  beast  and  over  his  image,  etc. 
i.  e.  over  the  Papacy,  and  over  the  persecuting  civil  pow- 
ers in  league  with  it,  and  by  which  it  was  supported. — 
The  church  being  delivered  from  this  anti-christian  sys- 
tem, raises  the  voice  of  thanksgiving  while  she  stands  on, 
or  at  the  sea  of  glass.  There  is  manifestly  an  allusion 
to  the  deliverance  of  the  church  at  the  Red  Sea,  stan- 
ding thereat  and  praising  the  Lord.  And  the  church 
standing  on,  or  at  the  sea  of  glass,  "sing  the  song  of  Mo- 
ses the  servant  of  God,  and  the  song  of  the  Lamb." — 
There  are  three  characteristics  of  this  song  which  ought 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY 


167 


to  be  noticed.  It  is  a  song  of  thanksgiving  for  deliver- 
ance granted  to  the  church.  It  is  the  song  of  Moses  the 
servant  of  God; — and  it  is  the  song  of  the  Lamh,  Each 
of  these  has  its  own  separate  and  distinct  meaning.  And 
v^hy  is  it  called  the  song  of  Moses  and  the  Lamb,  and 
not  the  song  of  David  and  the  Lamb,  or  the  song  of 
Isaiah  and  the  Lamb?  or  some  other  eminent  servant  of 
God?  Obviously  because  Moses  sustained  a  relation- 
ship to  the  church,  which  no  other  man  did.  He  was 
the  Lawgiver  of  the  church.  He  is  called  a  mediator 
between  God  and  the  church.  In  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea,  the  church  was  baptized  unto  Moses,  as  the  deliverer, 
leader,  and  lawgiver  thereof.  Hence  the  Lamb,  or  Christ 
and  Moses  are  often  presented  in  contrast.  "Moses  as 
a  servant  was  faithful  in  all  his  house — the  church — but 
Christ  as  a  Son  over  his  own  house."  **The  law  was 
given  by  Moses,  but  grace  and  truth  came  by  Jesus 
Christ."  And  accordingly,  Moses  is  the  representative 
of  the  Mosaic  dispensation;  and  Christ  the  representa- 
tive of  the  Christian  dispensation.  The  song  of  Moses, 
then,  will  be  a  song  res^Decting  the  church  under  the 
Mosaic  dispensation;  and  a  song  of  deliverance  respect- 
ing the  church  under  the  Mosaic  dispensation;  will  be  a 
song  'recounting  the  deliverances  of  the  church  under 
that  dispensation;  such  as  that  sung  at  the  Red  Sea,  and 
tha  sung  by  Deborah  and  Barak.  And  in  contradis- 
tinction from  this,  "the  song  of  the  Lamb,"  will  be  any 
song  recounting  the  deliverances  obtained  by  the  church 
under  the  Christian  dispensation.  And  as  the  song  of 
Moses  and  the  Lamb,  is  merely  the  representative  of  such 
songs,  as  are  sung  by  the  church  on  this  occasion;  these 
songs,  are  songs  recounting  the  deliverances  granted  to 
the  church,  both  in  ancient  and  modern  times;  both  un- 
der the  Mosaic  and  Christian  dispensations.   It  is  firmly 


168 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


believed,  that  the  distinctive  characteristics  of  these  two 
songs  are  these  now  mentioned.  And  hence,  in  the  book 
of  Psalms,  songs  answering  to  "the  song  of  Moses/* 
might  be  found;  but  songs  answering  to  "the  song  of  the 
Lamb,"  could  not  be  found;  because  there  are  no  songs 
there  recounting  the  deliverances  obtained  by  the  Chris- 
tian church.  And  especially,  there  are  no  songs  there 
recounting  the  victories  gained  by  the  church  over  the 
beast,  and  over  his  image,  and  over  his  mark  and  over 
the  number  of  his  name,  and  adoring  the  Lord  God  Al- 
mighty, because  his  judgments  are  made  manifest,  in  the 
destruction  of  these  enemies  of  the  church.  When  the 
church  uses  such  songs,  she  uses  songs  not  contained  in 
the  book  of  Psalms.  And  moreover,  she  uses  songs  not 
found  any  where  in  the  Bible.  Because  there  are  no 
songs  in  the  Bible  recounting  the  victories  gained  by  the 
church  over  the  "Man  of  Sin,"  unless  this  is  done  in 
some  measure,  in  the  one  contained  in  the  19th  of  Rev. 
All  such  songs  must  be  prepared  by  the  church  for  her- 
self: and  that  by  the  agency  of  uninspired  men.  And 
in  this  prophecy,  songs  of  this  kind  she  is  positively  rep- 
resented as  singing.  Hence  she  uses  songs  not  contained 
in  the  book  of  Psalms;  and  songs  too,  which  are  the 
compositions  of  uninspired  men. 

Again:  in  the  19th  chapter  the  church  is  represented 
as  engaged  in  another  song  of  praise.  And  it  has  many 
features  not  belonging  to  any  song  in  the  book  of 
Psalms.  "And  after  these  things  I  heard  a  great  voice 
of  much  people  in  Heaven  saying  Alleluia;  Salvation, 
and  glory,  and  honor,  and  power  unto  the  Lord  our  God; 
For  true  and  righteous  are  his  judgments:  for  he  hath 
judged  the  great  whore  which  did  corrupt  the  earth  with 
her  fornication,  and  hath  avenged  the  blood  of  his  ser- 
vants at  her  hand,    And  again  they  said  Alleluia."  In 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


169 


this  song  the  Church  praises  the  Lord  for  the  judgments 
inflicted  upon  "the  great  whore."  The  same  Mother  of 
harlots  seen  riding  upon  the  scarlet  colored  beast  with 
seven  heads  and  ten  horns.  Which  symbolizes  the 
Church  of  Rome  riding  upon  the  civil  power  of  the  ten 
Kingdoms  ;  and  trampling  under  the  feet  of  this  huge 
bloody  beast  the  Saints  of  the  Most  High ;  and  causing 
that  as  many  as  would  not  worship  the  image  of  the  beast 
[the  Pope]  should  be  killed,"  with  the  civilsword.  The 
song  is  sung  by  the  Church  after  the  downfall  of  Popery. 
And  in  the  song  there  is  specific  mention  made  of  the 
abominations  of  Popery:  the  polluting  influence  of  the 
corrupt  system  in  the  earth:  and  how  Popery  had  shed 
the  blood  of  the  servants  of  th«  Lord  :  and  allusions  to 
the  righteous  judgments  of  God  in  overturning  that 
wicked  system.  But  there  are  no  songs  in  the  book  of 
Psalms  containing  matter  of  this  kind.  It  is  taught  here 
;hat  the  Church  uses  songs  of  this  kind,  and  therefore 
ibe  cannot  be  confined  to  the  book  of  Psalms.  "And  a 
^oice  came  out  of  the  throne  saying,  Praise  our  God  all 
ye  his  servants^  and  ye  that  fear  him,  both  small  and 
g  ;eat.  And  I  heard  as  it  were  the  voice  of  a  great  mul- 
titude, and  as  the  voice  of  many  waters,  and  as  the  voice 
of  mighty  thunderings,  saying:  Alleluia,  for  the  Lord 
God  omnipotent  reigneth.  Let  us  be  glad  and  rejoice 
and  give  honor  to  him:  for  the  marriage  of  the  Lamb  is 
come,  and  his  wife  hath  made  herself  ready."  Here  is 
more  matter  contained  in  this  song  which  is  not  found  in 
the  Psalms.  It  is  sung  at  the  introduction  of  the  glori- 
ous millenium,  when  the  Church  being  delivered  from 
all  oppression,  and  all  anti-christian  corruptions,  will  be 
made  ready  and  meet  to  be  publicly  espoused  to  Christ 
the  bride-groom  of  his  own  ransomed  Church:  when 
henceforth  he  will  constantly  manifest  his  favor,  showing 
15 


170 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


that  she  is  his  delight,  and  his  beloved,  and  never  again 
will  his  gracious  presence  be  w^ithdrawn.  There  is  posi- 
tively no  song  in  the  book  of  Psalms  that  speaks  of  "the 
marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb,"  and  declares  that  it  is 
come;  or  that  the  glorious  millenium  has  now  arrived; 
and  that  the  Lord  hath  judged  the  great  whore  which 
did  corrupt  the  earth ;  and  that  he  has  avenged  the  blood 
of  his  servants  at  her  hand.  Songs  containing  these  facts 
must  be  drawn  from  some  other  source  than  the  book  of 
Psalms.  But  the  prophecy  assures  us  that  the  Church 
sings  such  songs  of  praise,  and  hence  she  is  not  confined 
to  the  book  of  Psalms.  And  it  follows,  that  it  was  not 
given  to  constitute  her  Psalmody.  And  it  follows  too^ 
that  such  songs  must  be  prepared  by  uninspired  men, 
for,  in  the  Bible,  this  matter  is  not  contained  in  any  songS 
of  such  a  form  as  fits  them  for  the  Church's  use.  And 
these  songs  contained  in  the  book  of  Revelation  are 
merely  brief  representatives  of  the  kind  of  songs  used 
by  the  Church  on  these  various  occasions.  But  these 
representatives  teaches  the  undeniable  fact,  that  the 
songs  used  by  the  Church  contain  a  great  amount  of 
matter  not  found  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  How  then  can 
we  account  for  the  following  declaration  of  Dr.  Pressly: 
If  all  the  songs  of  praise  found  throughout  the  Bible, 
were  examined  with  care,  I  believe  it  would  be  seen, 
that  there  is  not  an  idea  expressed  in  any  one  of  them, 
which  is  not  exhibited  in  nearly  the  same  identical 
words,  in  some  part  of  the  book  of  Psalms,"  P.  89. 
Now,  it  might  well  be  asked,  did  the  Doctor  ever  see 
the  book  of  Psalms,  and  the  songs  contained  in  other 
parts  of  the  Bible?  And  if  he  did,  how  can  it  be  ac- 
counted for,  that  he  has  published  such  a  declaration? 
"Not  an  idea,"  he  says,  "in  any  one  of  them,  but  is 
found  in  the  book  of  Psalms!"    After  this,  what  may 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


171 


he  not  say]  And  not  only  every  idea;  but,  "exhibited 
in  nearly  the  same  identical  words!"  Truly,  it  needs 
no  comment;  its  character  is  written  upon  it  very  fore- 
head! But  on  this  subject  the  Doctor  has  exhibited 
himself  in  a  more  remarkable  manner  then  even  here. 
It  is  on  p.  47.  I  give  a  large  extract,  as  it  is  a  curiosity. 
Dr.  Ralston  had  asked,  where  did  the  Church  get  the 
subject-matter  of  the  songs  contained  in  the  book  of 
Revelation?  And  had  said,  **  The  correct  answer  goes 
far  in  deciding  the  point  in  dispute."  To  this  Dr.  Pressly 
replies;  "With  the  venerable  author  1  cordially  concur 
in  opinion,  that  the  ^'correct  ansicer'^  to  this  question,  will 
go  far  in  deciding  the  disputed  point.  I  am  even  pre- 
pared to  go  further,  and  say,  that  the  "correct  answer" 
to  thi&  question  would  completely  terminate  the  contro- 
versy. But  with  all  due  deference  I  must  be  permitted 
to  doubt  whether  my  Father  has  given  the  "correct  an- 
swer." The  question  is,  Where  did  the  Church  get 
the  subject-matter  of  the  songs  contained  in  the  book  of 
Revelation?''  .1  answer:  "The  subject-matter  of  the 
songs  was  taken  neither  from  the  Old  Testament  nor 
from  the  New;  but  the  songs  themselves  were  given  to 
the  Church  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  are  a  part  of  the 
sacred  volume."  Here  he  says,  "the  Church  got  the 
subject-matter  of  the  songs  neither  from  the  Old  Testa- 
ment nor  from  the  New;  but  the  songs  themselves  were 
given  to  the  Church  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  Now  the 
songs  contained  in  the  15th  and  19th  chapters  are  sung 
by  the  Church  after  the  fall  of  Antichrist:  after  the 
Church  is  delivered  from  the  domination  of  the  Man  of 
Sin.  And  we  may  say,  that  this  is  not  earlier  than  the 
nineteenth  century."  Now  where  does  the  Church  in 
the  nineteenth  century  get  the  subject-mater  of  these 
songs?    Dr.  Pressly  says,  "she  gets  it  neither  from  the 


172 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Old  Testament  nor  tbe  New;  but  the  songs  themselves 
are  given  to  the  Church  by  the  Holy  Spirit."  Nov7  can 
the  Doctor  inform  us  where  it  was  that  this  occurred — 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  gave  songs  to  the  Church  in  the 
nineteenth  century]  Where  was  it  that  the  Holy  Spiiit 
inspired  men  in  the  nineteenth  century,  to  give  these 
sono^s  to  the  Church]  The  Church  uses  them  in  the 
present  age,  and  she  gets  the  subject-matter  of  them 
neither  from  the  Old  Testament  nor  the  New;  but  he  says 
they  are  given  to  her  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  According  to 
the  Doctor,  then,  there  are  new  revelations  in  the  pres- 
ent age.  And  there  are  inspired  men  in  the  present  age. 
And  he  says,  these  songs  given  to  the  Church  by  tbe 
Holy  Spirit,  in  the  present  age  "are  a  part  of  the  sacred 
volume."  Hence,  the  canon  of  Scripture  was  never 
closed  until  the  nineteenth  century.  And  these  songs 
were  never  in  the  book  of  Revelation  until  the  nineteenth 
century!  And  the  one  in  the  19th  chapter  is  not  in  it  yet! 
For  the  Church  has  not  yet  sung  it;  and  when  she  does 
sing  it,  she  will  get  it  neither  from  the  Old  Testament  nor 
from  the  New;  but  direct  from  the  Holy  Spirit !  And 
who,  but  Dr.  Pressly,  could  believe  it]  And  far  more 
absurdities  than  these  are  implied  in  this  passage.  How 
supremely  ridiculous  a  man  will  make  himself,  while 
contending  for  error }  Teaching  that  the  songs  used  by 
the  Church  in  the  nineteenth  century  are  not  taken  from 
the  word  of  God,  though  they  are  in  it ;  but  that  they  are 
given  to  the  Church  direct  by  the  Holy  Spirit!  O  such 
£t  cause !  that  requires^  such  reasoning  !  We  see  here 
also,  how  the  Doctor  confutes  himself;  and  proves  his 
other  assertions  respecting  these  songs  to  be  fake.  He 
said  that  every  idea  in  them  is  found  in  the  book  of 
Psalms,  and  expressed  in  nearly  the  same  identical  lan- 
guage.   And  now  he  says  the  Holy  Spirit  gave  them  to 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


173 


his  Church.  And  what  was  the  use  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
giving  them  to  the  Church  when  they  were  abeady  in 
the  book  of  Psalms]  The  Holy  Spirit  never  does  any 
thing  unnecessary.  His  giving  these  songs  proves,  that 
it  was  necessary  to  give  them,  and  this  proves  that  they 
were  not  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  And  thus  the  Doctor, 
by  saying  the  Holy  Spirit  gave  these  songs  to  the  Church, 
proves  his  own  assertion  false.  He  proves  it  false  in 
another  way.  He  says,  The  subject-matter  of  these 
songs  was  taken  neither  from  the  Old  Testament  nor 
from  the  New."  Hence  it  was  not  taken  from  the  book 
"'f  Psalms  :  it  is  different  from  the  matter  contained  in 
that  book  :  therefore  the  ideas  cannot  be  the  same,  nor 
expressed  in  the  same  identical  language.  And  he  thus, 
not  only  confounds  himself,  but  his  language  is  highly 
derogatory  to  the  Holy  Spirit.  He  says,  the  **Holy 
Spirit  gave  these  songs  to  the  Church,"  and  then  says,  it 
was  useless  for  him  to  do  so.  P.  89.  "  What  then  would 
be  gained,  in  so  far  as  the  wants  of  the  Church  are  con- 
cerned, were  all  the  songs  throughout  the  Bible  added  to 
this  divine  collection."  He  asks  the  Holy  Spirit,  A¥hat 
is  gained  by  adding  these  songs,  which  He  gave  to  the 
Church,  to  this  divine  collection?  Thus,  he  would  point 
out  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  the  folly  of  giving  songs  to  the 
Church  which  are  of  no  advantage.  And  he  says  this 
divine  collection,  **is  perfect,  not  only  in  its  parts,  but  as 
a  system  of  praise,  and  it  needs  no  addition,"  while  he 
says  the  Holy  Spirit  has  added  to  it,  and  has  given  other 
songs  to  the  Church.  The  Holy  Spirit  has  changed  what 
was  perfect :  and  has  added  to  what  needed  no  addition  ! 
It  is  indeed  strange  how  his  people  can  study  his  book, 
and  not  be  shocked  at  the  impiety  implied  in  many  of 
his  assertions ;  when  what  he  asserts  in  one  place  ia 
compared  witlx  what  he  asserts  in  anothei? :  they  are  so 
15* 


174 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


self-contradictory  and  so  contradictory  to  the  revelations 
of  the  Bible!  and  involve  so  much  that  is  disparaging  to 
the  w^isdom  of  God  I  But  w^hen  men  undertake  to  de 
fend  error,  there  are  always  features  developed  of  pre- 
cisely this  description.  These  prophecies,  then,  teach 
very  clearly,  that  the  Nev^  Testament  Church  should  use 
songs  of  praise  not  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms. 
Songs  drawn  from  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  and 
founded  upon  events  connected  with  the  history  of  the 
Church ;  and  of  consequence  songs  of  praise  composed 
by  uninspired  men. 

Again,  the  book  of  Psalms  w^as  not  designed  to  con- 
stitute the  Psalmody  of  the  church  because  it  is  not 
sufficient  for  that  end.  It  is  infinitely  well  adapted  to 
the  end  for  which  it  was  given  to  us,  i.  e.  our  learning. 
In  common  with  the  rest  of  the  Old  Testament  Scrip- 
tures, it  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for 
correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness,  that  the  man 
of  God  may  be  perfect  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all 
good  works.  But  it  does  not  contain  all  that  is  valuable 
and  suitable  to  be  incorporated  in  the  Psalmody  of  the 
Christian  church.  The  Psalmody  of  the  Church  ought  to 
correspond  to  her  character;  and  there  ought  to  be  a  har- 
mony pervading  the  several  parts  of  her  worship.  But 
there  are  traits  of  character  appertaning  to  the  Christian 
church  to  correspond  with  which  there  is  nothing  in  the 
book  of  Psalms.  For  instance,  the  New  testament  church 
had  a  predecessor;  and  she  is  the  successor  to  the  church 
of  the  former  dispensation.  She  will  then  have  frequent 
allusions  to  the  nature  and  condition  of  her  predecessors. 
There  is  much  of  this  in  the  Epistles  to  the  Galatians 
and  the  Hebrews.  The  church  now  in  her  sermons 
and  her  prayers,  has  frequent  allusions  to  the  church  of 
the  former  dispensation.    But  in  the  Psalms  there  can 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


175 


be  no  allusion  to  a  preceding  cliurcli ;  for  when  they 
were  given  there  had  been  no  predecessor.  And  conse- 
quently when  in  our  sermons  and  prayers,  we  contras! 
the  superior  privileges  of  the  church  of  the  present 
dispensation  with  those  of  the  church  of  the  former,  and 
use  the  Psalms,  our  songs  of  praise  do  not  harmonize 
with  the  other  parts  of  our  worship.  Our  sermons  and 
our  prayers  will  be  peculiar  to  the  present  dispensation; 
but  our  Psalmody  will  not.  And  thus  our  Psalmody 
does  not  correspond  to  the  other  exercises:  it  is  out  of 
place  because  it  does  not  allude  to  the  chief  subject  of 
the  other  parts  of  the  exercises.  And  hence  the  parts 
of  worship  are  disjouited:  there  is  something  like  a  dis- 
cord; and  all  things  do  not  seem  to  be  done  in  order. 

Again:  the  ritual  of  the  New  Testament  Church  is  al- 
together different  from  that  of  the  Old;  and  hence  her 
dialect  must  be  different.  The  common  dialect  of  the 
Old  Testament  church,  was  to  speak  of  high-priests,  and 
priests,  and  Levite«,  and  altars,  and  trumpets,  and  sacri- 
fices; of  the  blood  of  bulls,  and  of  goats,  and  of  rams; 
of  heave  offerings,  and  wave  offerings,  and  thank  offer- 
ings; and  beaten  oil,  and  fine  flour,  and  incense,  and  wa 
ter  of  purification,  and  holy  garments,  and  consecrated 
vessels;  and  show  bread;  and  feasts  of  new  mt)ons,  of 
trumpets,  of  the  passover,  of  pentecost,  of  atonement, 
of  tabernacles,  of  harvest,  of  jubilee,  etc.  And  these 
things,  and  many  more,  being  used  in  her  rites  and  cer- 
emonies, her  dialect  or  language  must  be  peculiar;  be- 
cause it  is  formed  upon  the  ritual  of  the  church.  But  the 
New  Testament  church  in  her  ritual  has  none  of  these 
things,  and  her  language  cannot  be  based  upon  them; 
hence  her  dialect  must  be  very  different  from  that  of  the 
other  church.  She  speaks  of  one  great  High-Priest,  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.    And  instead  of  speaking  of  the 


176 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY* 


blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats,  etc.,  she  constantly  speaks 
of  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  which  cleanseth  from  all  sin. 
And  she  has  no  priests;  but  she  speaks  of  presbyters,  or 
elders;  and  deacons;  and  ambassadors  of  Christ;  and 
ministers  of  the  churches.  But  there  is  no  language  in 
the  Psalms  correspondioig  to  these.  And  as  this  is  the 
common  language  of  the  church,  we  would  suppose  it 
ought  to  be  used  in  eyery  part  of  her  worship.  But  if 
the  book  of  Psalms  constitute  her  Psalmody,  this  is  im- 
possible. The  Psalms  never  mention  the  blood  of  Je- 
sus Christ;  nor  presbyters;  nor  elders;  nor  deacons;  nor 
ambassadors  of  Christ;  nor  ministers  of  the  churches; 
nor  many  other  things  with  which  the  language  of  the 
church  is  constantly  conversant.  This  dialect  of  the 
church  is  always  used  in  her  sermons  and  her  prayers, 
and  must  she  not  use  it  in  singing  praise?  Why  should 
she  use  a  dialect  in  that  part  of  her  worship,  which  is 
foreign  to  her  real  character]  Why  should  she  be  chris- 
tian in  every  part  of  her  worship,  excej^t  in  singing  the 
praise  of  God?  Why  must  she  exclude  the  dialect  of 
the  Christian  church  from  this  delightful  part  of  the  di- 
vine service?  It  is  both  unreasonable  and  unscriptural 
to  suppose,  that  the  glorious  King  of  Zion  ever  ordained 
such  an  inconsistency  for  his  church.  And  since  the 
church  has  undergone  such  an  entire  change  under  the 
present  dispensation,  why  must  she  be  confined  to  the 
psalmody  of  the  former  dispensation.  When  she  is 
changed  in  every  thing  else,  why  must  she  remain  un- 
changed in  this?  Her  laws,  and  her  rites,  and  her  cer- 
emonies, and  her  forms  of  worship,  are  all  changed,  and 
the  change  is  so  great  as  to  be  symbolized  in  prophecy, 
by  a  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  and  yet  there  must 
be  no  change  iji  her  Psalmody!  Old  things  have  passed 
away,  and  all  things  have  become  new,  and  the  old  Psal- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


177 


mody,  is  the  only  Psalmody  still !  When  the  church  is 
changed  in  every  other  part  of  her  worship,  where  is 
there  either  Scripture  or  reason  to  prove,  that  she  is  unr- 
changed  in  this'?  Just  no  where.  You  might  as  well 
suppose,  that  when  the  government  of  this  nation  is 
changed  from  that  of  a  British  province,  to  that  of  an 
independent  Republic,  and  a  new  constitution,  a  new 
Executive,  and  a  new  Legislature  adopted,  the  nation 
must  still  use  the  English  laws,  without  either  alteration 
or  addition.  This  supposition  would  not  be  a  whit  more 
absurd  than  the  other.  And  just  as  the  English  laws 
may  be  useful  to  this  nation^,  though  they  do  not  suit  all 
her  purposes,  so  the  book  of  Psalms  is  exceedingly  val- 
uable to  theChristian  church,  though  it  is  not  suitable  for 
all  her  purposes  of  praise. 

Again,  the  vocation  of  the  New  Testament  Church 
renders  the  book  of  Psalms  insufficient  to  constitute  her 
Psalmody.  Her  vocation,  in  one  very  important  respect, 
is  different  from  that  of  her  predecessor;  for  she  is  em- 
phatically a  missionary  institution.  It  is  true  indeed, 
that  the  vocation  of  the  Church  in  all  ages  is  to  repre- 
sent the  God  of  Truth,  and  maintain  the  capse  of  right- 
eousness in  a  fallen  world.  And  the  Jewish  Church  was 
to  do  this  especially  by  her  own  preservation  ;  by  keep- 
ing herself  separate  from  the  nations  of  the  earth.  And 
by  observing  the  laws  and  ordinances,  and  institutions 
apponited  for  her  by  her  God  and  King.  But  though 
she  was  not  to  exclude  any  who  desired  to  unite  with 
the  Church  of  the  true  God,  yet  she  ws  not  commissioned 
to  go  forth  and  convert  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  the 
true  religion.  This  is  the  peculiar  and  high  vocation  of 
the  Christian  Church:  to  go  forth  clad  in  the  armor  of 
Salvation  and  conquer  the  world  :  to  invade  the  domiu-* 
ions  of  the  Prince  of  darkness  t  everywhere  tg  deliver 


178 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


the  people  from  his  cruel  bondage ;  and  bring  the  na- 
tions to  bow  in  delightful  submission  to  the  peaceful 
sceptre  of  King  Jesus,  Jesus  said  to  his  Church,  as 
she  was  then  represented  by  the  Apostles,  "  Go  ye  into 
all  the  world  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature, 
and  lo  !  I  am  with  you  always,  even  unto  the  end  of  the 
world/'  The  high  calling  of  the  Christian  Church,  then, 
is  to  convert  the  world  to  the  faith  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  This  is  the  imperative  duty  imposed  upon  her 
by  the  high  authority  of  her  Lord  and  King.  And  her 
distinctive  character  is,  that  she  is  and  must  be  a  mission- 
ary church.  This  glorious  vocation  of  subduing  the 
world  to  her  divine  Lord,  she  should  keep  constantly  in 
view.  Hence  then,  in  her  sermons,  in  her  prayers,  and 
in  her  praises,  her  peculiar  and  high  vocation  ought 
surely,  to  have  a  place.  But  if  she  use  only  the  Psalms, 
in  her  songs  of  praise,  to  this  high  vocation  she  can  n^ver 
once  allude.  She  can  never  intimate  that  she  is  what 
she  is  ;  namely,  a  missionary  Church  to  the  world.  She 
may  pray  and  preach  much  respecting  her  duty  in  this 
matter,  but  she  can  never  refer  to  it  in  her  songs  of  praise, 
Because  the  glorious  work  of  missions  is  never  men- 
tioned in  the  book  of  Psalms.  And  will  not  this  account 
for  some  men's  partiality  to  these  Psalms,  because  in  using 
them,  they  are  never  plagued  with  having  the  cause  of 
missions  pressed  upon  their  attention.  A  subject,  the 
mention  of  which,  discommodes  them  so  much,  they 
will  natui'ally  wish  to  have  left  out  of  their  Psalmody. 
And  the  Psalmody  which  has  it  not,  is  just  what  pleases 
them.  But  the  Church  ought  ever  to  remember  her  own 
duty  and  privilege,  and  endeavor  to  fulfil  her  high  voca- 
tion ;  and  use  every  proper  means  that  will  facilitate  the 
work  of  gathering  the  nations  into  the  Church  of  God. 
And  the  character  of  her  Psalmody  will  have  a  very  im- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


179 


portant  influence  in  this  matter.  If  the  songs  of  Zion 
bring  clearly  before  the  minds  of  the  people  the  glory 
and  importance  of  evangelizing  the  nations  of  the  earth, 
it  will  awaken  in  their  hearts  a  warmth  and  devotion  to 
the  cause  of  the  Redeemer  abroad;  and  then,  by  their 
agency,  the  streams  of  Salvation  will  be  made  to  flow 
through  far  distant  lands.  But  if  the  Psalmody  of  the 
Church  does  not  bring  this  subject  into  contact  with  the 
minds  and  hearts  of  the  people,  one  valuable  means  of 
advancing  the  interests  of  this  cause,  will  thus  lie  entire- 
ly neglected.  And  I  doubt  not,  it  would  be  the  duty  of 
the  Church  to  use  a  gospel  Psalmody  on  this  account,  if 
there  was  no  other.  And  the  churches  refusing  to  do  it, 
are  negligent  of  their  duty;  because  they  are  refusing  to 
adopt  such  lawful  means  as  will  further  the  interests  of 
Zion,  and  enable  her  to  fulfil  the  high  vocation  to  which 
she  has  been  called  by  her  exalted  Head  and  King.  It 
is  well  known  that  the  Psalmody  of  a  people  has  a  mighty 
influence  in  moulding  their  views,  and  feelings,  and  prac- 
tice. And  all  that  may  be  effected  for  the  good  cause  by 
having  a  missionary  Psalmody,  is  entirely  lost  in  those 
churches  where  they  use  nothing  but  Rouse's  paraphrase. 
This  Psalmody  does  not  discourage  the  work  of  Missions; 
but  it  does  not  present  and  bring  home  the  work  to  the 
hearts  of  the  people.  And  this  may  be  one  cause  why 
the  churches  using  this  Psalmody  are  generally  so  slug- 
gish and  inactive  in  this  all  important  work :  because 
they  have  not  the  life  and  impulse  that  a  missionary 
Psalmody  would  impart  to  their  feelings,  and  their  prac- 
tice in  the  service  of  the  Lord.  And  thus  we  see,  that  the 
prosperity  of  Zion,  may  be,  and  no  doubt  is,  hindered 
by  using  a  Psalmody  not  corresponding  to  the  high  vo- 
cation of  the  Christian  Church,  as  the  appointed  of  God 
to  evangelize  the  nations  of  the  earth.    It  is  perfectly 


180  MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


obviciis,  then,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  not  designed 
to  constitute  the  Psalmody  of  the  Christian  Church,  be- 
cause such  a  Psalmody  does  not  correspond  to  her  pe- 
culiar character,  and  is  not  such  as  is  best  adapted  to 
enable  her  to  discharge  her  whole  duty,  as  enjoined  by 
her  divine  Redeemer. 

Again,  the  sacraments  of  the  New  Testament  Church 
constitute  another  peculiar  feature  of  her  character. 
Baptism  is  the  divine  ordinance  of  initiation  amd  recog- 
nition in  the  Church  of  Christ.  And  hence  it  is  to  her 
an  all-important  ordinance.  None  can  be  recognized 
as  entitled  to  the  privileges  of  the  Church  without 
the  application  of  this  rite.  And  through  this  divine 
ordinance  all  the  accessions  of  the  Church  must  come; 
and  it  is  essential  to  her  very  existence  as  a  Christian 
Church.  And  yet,  must  she  never  once  allude  to  it,  in 
all  her  songs  of  praise?  If  she  be  confined  to  the  book 
of  Psalms,  this  is  the  necessary  consequence ;  for  these 
Psalms  know  nothing  of  this  divine  ordinance.  We  may 
have  much  respecting  it  in  our  sermons  and  in  our  pray- 
ers, but  we  must  exclude  it  forever  from  our  praises ! 
This  ordinance,  by  which  we  are  received  into  the  bosom 
of  the  Church,  to  partake  of  its  glorious  privileges  and 
in  which  we  dedicate  our  dear  offspring  to  our  covenant 
God,  we  must  never  refer  to  when  we  praise  our  cove- 
nant God  !  Is  this  the  consistency  of  Christianity?  This 
rite,  which  seals  to  every  subject  of  it  a  title  to  all  the 
privileges  of  the  visible  Church  of  God,  and  which  seals 
to  every  believer  a  title  to  all  the  blessings  of  the  cove- 
nant of  grace,  and  is  therefore  so  dear  and  precious  to 
all  the  people  of  God,  yet  they  must  never  allude  to  it 
when  they  lift  up  their  voices  in  His  praise !  Who  could 
believe  it?  An  ordinance,  too,  which  constitutes  the  very 
badge  of  discipleship  among  the  followers  of  the  Re- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


181 


deemer;  by  which  the  children  of  the  Church  are  distin- 
guished from  the  world;  and  which  forms  the  very  wall 
of  separation  between  the  church  and  the  world j  and 
yet,  to  this  sacred  inclosure  which  gathers  them  into  com- 
munion with  the  blessings  of  God's  house,  in  all  their 
songs  of  praise  they  must  never  once  i*efer!  Who 
would  ever  suppose,  that  the  infinitely  wise  God  has 
given  an  ordinance  to  his  church,  which  she  must  never 
mention,  to  which  she  must  never  refer,  when  she  lifts 
up  her  voice  to  praise  the  Lord  who  gave  her  that  ordi- 
nance] The  minds  of  men  who  can  believe  it  are  surely 
much  stultified  by  some  kind  of  influence.  And  those, 
who  hold  that  the  church  ought  to  use  nothing  but  the 
book  of  Psalms,  must  believe  it ;  for  in  using  these  she 
can  never  refer  to  this  ordinance.  I  am  aware,  that  in 
answer  to  such  arguments  Dr.  Pressly  would  say,  This 
is  reasoning  after  the  manner  of  men ;  but  not  accor- 
ding to  the  wisdom  of  God ;  for  when  God  has  given  a 
Book  of  Psalms  to  his  church,  it  is  not  for  sinful  short- 
sighted man  to  say  what  is  fit  or  reasonable,  in  this  mat- 
ter, or  what  is  not.  Thus,  with  his  groundless  and  un- 
scriptural  assumption,  that  God  has  appointed  the  book  of 
Psalms  for  the  Psalmody  of  the  church,  he  would  over- 
turn both  scripture  and  reason  ;  represent  the  Head  of 
the  church  as  acting  unwisely  ;  and  set  aside  much  that 
is  fit  and  becoming  in  the  church  of  God. 

Again:  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord's  Supper  is  another 
disting^uishinof  ordinance  of  the  New  Testament  church. 

o  o 

It  has  been  considered  the  solemn  and  delightful  char- 
acteristic festival  of  the  church  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ, 
But  this  festival  is  not  recognized  in  the  book  of  Psalms. 
And  the  church  that  has  this  for  her  Psalmody,  can  never 
speak  of  this  precious  ordinance,  in  any  of  her  songs  of 
praise.  They  may  preach,  and  pray,  and  converse,  and 
16 


18^ 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


meditate  about  the  Lord's  supper;  but  in  alf  their  exerci- 
ses, they  can  never  sing  about  the  Lord's  supper.  And 
when  this  is  the  case,  there  must  surely  be  a  deficiency 
in  their  Psalmody.  It  cannot  be,  what  the  church  of  Je- 
sus Christ  requires,  when  there  is  no  place  in  it,  for  this 
delightful  ordinance.  The  people  of  the  Lord  may  sit 
around  the  table  of  solemn  communion,  and  renew  their 
covenant  engagements  with  their  God  and  Redeemer 
— their  fellowship  may  be  with  the  Father  and  with  his 
Son  Jesus  Christ — they  may  be  filled  with  rapturous  joy 
in  contemplating  the  riches  of  redeeming  grace — and 
wonder  at  the  unspeakable  love  and  condecension  of  the 
Son  of  God,  in  assuming  their  nature,  in  bearing  the 
curse  for  them,  in  falling  under  the  stroke  of  divine 
wrath  for  their  redemption,  and  in  leaving  them  these 
tokens  of  his  love — these  emblems  of  his  broken  body 
and  shed  blood — and  their  souls  may  be  filled  with  holy 
joy  and  gladness — their  hearts  may  be  overflowing  with 
gratitude  to  Jesus  for  this  sacred  festival — they  may 
thank  him  in  their  thoughts — they  may  thank  him  in 
their  prayers— but  the  voice  of  praise  must  never  be  raised 
among  the  redeemed,  to  bless  him  for  this  joyous  festival 
prepared  for  them  by  his  dying  love!  Ye  people  of  the 
Lord,  can  ye  believe  it?  Can  ye  believe,  that  your  Re- 
deemer has  forbidden  you,  on  such  an  occasion,  to  unite 
your  voices  in  a  joyful  song  of  praise?  saying: — 

**The  Lord  of  life  this  table  spread, 

With  his  own  flesh  and  dying  blood; 
We  on  the  rich  provisions  feed, 

We  taste  the  wine  and  bless  our  God. 
Jesus  thy  feast  we  celebrate. 

We  show  thy  death,  we  sing  thy  name 
Till  thou  return,  and  we  shall  eat 

The  marriage  supper  of  the  Lamb.'' 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


183 


Truly,  the  Lord  of  life  never  ordained  such  an  absur- 
dity in  his  church  as  is  implied  in  the  doctrine,  that  his 
people  must  never  use  any  songs  of  praise,  having  for 
their  subject  matter,  the  ordinance  of  the  Lord's  supper. 
Just  think  of  it!  That  the  church  redeemed  by  the 
death  of  Christ,  must  never  sing  of  the  holy  festival 
which  he  has  left  as  the  memorial  of  his  dying  love  ! 
it  not  marvellous  that  men  having  the  Bible,  should  ever 
have  invented  such  a  fiction?  And  now  they  try  to  bol- 
ster it  up  with  the  unwarranted  assumption,  that  the 
book  of  Psalms  was  given  to  constitute  the  Psalmody  of 
the  church:  and  with  their  endless  cant,  about  inspired 
and  uninspired  composition.  Just  as  though  there  was 
some  divine  appointment  for  the  church  defining  the 
kind  of  composition  she  is  to  use.  The  whole  concern — 
the  system,  and  what  is  brought  to  support  it,  when 
viewed  in  the  light  of  divine  truth,  is  seen  to  be  highly 
unscriptural,  and  absurd.  And  this  want  of  adaptation 
in  the  Psalms  to  the  wants  of  the  Christian  church,  is 
sufficient  proof,  that  they  never  were  intended  to  con- 
stitute her  Psalmody;  and  that  it  is  her  province  and  her 
duty,  to  prepare  for  herself,  her  own  songs  of  praise. 

Again  :  "Thou  shalt  call  his  name  Jesus:  for  he  shall 
save  his  people  from  their  sins.''  But  this  sacred  name 
of  the  Redeemer  is  not  found  once  in  the  book  of 
Psalms.  And  must  the  name  of  Jesus,  be  excluded  from 
the  Psalmody  of  his  own  church  ]  How  can  the  Christian 
church  engage  in  the  worship  of  God  without  using  the 
name  of  Jesus  ]  It  is  impossible :  and  why  banish  his 
name  from  one  important  part  of  that  worship  ]  Who 
could  believe  it;  that  the  church  is  to  have  her  sermons 
and  her  prayers  filled  up  with  "Jesus  Christ,  and  him  cru- 
cified," and  that  he  must  never  be  named  in  her  songs  of 
praise?    Did  the  foolish  mind  of  man  ever  invent  3» 


184 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


greater  absurdity? — that  the  church  redeemed  by  the 
blood  of  Jesus,  when  she  lifts  up  her  voice  to  bless  him 
for  salvation,  must  not  dare  to  name  his  name  1  That 
name  so  dear  in  heaven  and  upon  earth:  which  the  eter- 
nal Jehovah  has  proclaimed  above  every  name — "there- 
fore God  also  hath  highly  exalted  him,  and  given  him  a 
name,  which  is  above  every  name;  That  at  the  name  of  Je- 
sus every  knee  should  bow.  And  that  every  tongue  should 
confess  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the 
Pather/'  But  Psalmonistic  Churches  in  their  songs  of 
praise  can  never  make  this  confession.  When  they  lift  up 
their  voices  in  a  song  of  praise,  they  can  never  glorify  God 
the  Father  by  confessing  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord  of 
all.  They  need  not  point  us  to  such  psalms  as  the  2nd 
or  110th,  for  this  exalted  name,  Jesus,  is  not  in  the  whole 
book  of  Psalms.  And  they  will  teach  us,  that  this  name, 
which  God  has  proclaimed  from  his  throne,  as  the  most 
exalted  and  glorious,  at  which  the  inhabitants  of  heaven, 
and  of  the  earth,  and  of  those  under  the  earth,  bow  in 
submission,  must  never  be  once  named  in  the  church,  in 
any  of  her  songs  of  praise !  A  name  which  is  the  theme 
of  constant  adoration  by  the  church  in  heaven,  and  the 
church  on  earth ;  but  it  must  never  be  heard  upon  the 
voice  of  her  songs !  What  kind  of  doctrine  is  it,  that 
would  exclude  the  name  of  Jesus  from  the  praises  of  his 
own  church  ]  A  name  so  dear  to  the  hearts  of  the  re- 
deemed; and  of  such  frequent  occurrence  in  the  language 
of  the  church.  Take  up  the  New  Testament  and  see 
how  much  of  it  you  can  read  without  naming  the  name 
of  Jesus,  Ten  times  in  one  short  chapter  it  falls  from 
the  lips  of  the  apostle  Paul — more  than  six  hundred  and 
fifty  times  it  occurs  in  the  New  Testament — and  the 
church  may  sing  praises  to  the  end  of  time,  but  must 
i:iever  use  this  name!    This  is  Psalmonism. — When  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


185 


ransomed  sinner  feels,  that  he  is  pardoned — that  God  is 
reconciled  to  him  through  the  blood  of  Jesus — when  he 
feels  that  the  load  of  guilt  which  lay  upon  his  conscience, 
and  crushed  him  down  to  the  dust  of  wretchedness,  is 
washed  away  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb — how  can  you 
prevent  him  from  exclaiming,  ''glory  be  to  Jesus,'* 
"whose  blood  cleanseth  from  all  sin/'  And  what  is  the 
difference  whether  he  say  it,  or  sing  it  ]  But  you  cannot 
prevent  him  from  singing  it:  he  will  sing  it  in  his  heart: 
yes,  and  he  will  sing  it  with  his  voice  too.  If  you  do 
not  let  him  sing  it  in  the  church,  he  will  sing  it  on  the 
high  way  and  in  the  fields  : — 

Jesus!  Glory  be  to  Thee ! 
Jesus  !  Thou  hast  set  me  free ! 
Precious  J esus !  Thou  art  mine ! 
Jesus !  I  am  ever  Thine. 
"How  sweet  the  name  of  Jesus  sounds 

In  a  believers  ear ! 
It  sooths  his  sorrows,  heals  his  wounds, 
And  drives  away  his  fear. 

Dear  Name  !  the  rock  on  which  I  build. 

My  shield  and  hiding  place ; 
My  never  failing  treasury,  filled 

With  boundless  stores  of  grace. 

Jesus,  my  Shepherd,  Husband,  Friend, 

My  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King ; 
My  Lord,  my  Life,  my  Way,  my  End, 
Accept  the  praise  I  bring.^' 
Yes  indeed,  the  man  who  feels,  that  he  is  redeemed 
by  the  precious  blood  of  Jesus  will  praise  his  name  in 
a  song ! 

Suppose  one  were  to  come  from  a  far  distant  country, 
where   they   had  never  heard  of  Christianity.  And 
every  sabbath  would  regularly  attend  Dr.  Pressly's 
church — ^he  finds  that  they  worship  Jesus — that  Jesus  is 
16* 


186 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


their  Saviour — that  the  name  of  Jesus  is  frequent  in 
their  sacred  books — that  he  is  the  constant  theme  of  all 
their  sermons  and  all  their  prayers ;  and  yet  in  all  their 
songs  of  praise  Jesus  is  never  named  !  Would  he  not  be 
astonished]  He  would  ask  the  Doctor  v^hy  they  had  Jesus 
in  every  thing,  except  in  their  songs  of  praise  1  And  the 
Doctor  would  tell  him,  that  Jesus  had  forbidden  them,  to 
use  his  name  in  singing;  for  he  was  their  Lord  and  King, 
and  he  had  given  them  a  book  of  Psalms  in  which  his 
name  was  not  found — and  it  v/as  the  will  of  Jesus,  "that 
this  should  be  used  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,'* 
Would  this  remove  his  astonishment  1  Jesus  their  God 
and  Saviour,  had  ordained,  that  his  name  should  be  used 
in  every  part  of  his  worship;  but  had  forbidden  them  to 
use  it  in  singing  his  praise  ! — His  amazement  would  only 
be  increased. — Having  returned  to  his  own  land  he 
would  tell  them  there,  that  he  was  among  a  people  who 
worshipped  one  Jesus :  and  Jesus  was  their  Saviour ; 
and  the  name  of  Jesus  was  in  their  sacred  books ;  and 
very  frequent  in  their  sermons  and  in  their  prayers  :  and 
yet  they  never  once  mentioned  the  name  of  Jesus  in  all 
their  songs  of  praise.  Would  they  believe  the  Traveller? 
Would  they  not  say,  that  he  wished  to  astonish  them 
v/ith  a  marvellous  story?  He  would  tell  them  further, 
that  this  Jesus  whom  the  people  worshipped  as  their 
Saviour,  had  ordained,  that  his  name  might  be  used  in 
every  part  of  his  worship  except  in  singing  his  praise. 
And  their  incredulity  would  only  be  increased.  To  re- 
move it  he  might  tell  them,  that  this  Jesus  at  an  early 
period  had  given  to  the  people  a  book  of  Psalms,  and 
the  name,  Jesus^  did  not  happen  to  be  in  it ;  and  after- 
wards he  appeared  among  them  by  this  name,  and  told 
them  to  use  it  in  every  part  of  his  worship ;  but  as  the 
Psalm-book  happened  to  be  given  too  soon,  or  by  some 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


187 


oversight  did  not  correspond  to  the  new  circumstances, 
yet  they  must  use  it  as  it  was;  because  he  could  not 
change  his  mind  to  have  it  altered  now.    This  might 
remove  their  incredulity ;  but  would  it  heighten  their 
regard  for  this  Jesus '?    They  would  be  ready  to  say, 
that  these  must  be  strange  people  when  they  worship 
one  who  committed  such  a  blunder  in  making  the  ar- 
rangements for  his  own  worship.    The  account  given 
by  the  Traveller  would  confound  their  sense  of  propri- 
ety ;  and  the  explanation  would  be  derogatory  to  the 
name  of  Christianity.    And  this  that  he  would  learn 
here  and  carry  home,  would  indeed  be,  a  base  slander 
upon  Jesus,  and  the  worship  which  he  hath  ordained. 
Does  it  not  appear  most  unreasonable,  that  in  all  the 
church's  songs  of  praise,  the  name  of  Jesus  must  never 
once  be  heard]    The  church  is  prasinghim  from  her  ori- 
gin down  to  the  end  of  time  ;  and  yet  his  name  must 
never  be  heard  with  her,  upon  the  voice  of  melody  and 
song!    How  perfectly  absurd  is  such  a  thought!  And 
just  think  of  it !    When  the  joy  and  blessedness  of  mil- 
lennial glory  shall  fill  the  whole  earth;  and  the  songs  of 
thanksgiving  and  praise  rise  from  every  land — when  the 
teeming  millions  of  China,  and  of  the  hills  and  vales 
over  all  Asia,  and  Europe,  and  Africa,  and  America, 
shall  send  up  one  universal,  and  long  hallelujah  of  praise 
from  the  joyful  earth  to  the  joyful  heavens — then  the 
name  of  Jesus  must  be  left  out ! — What  nonsense  !  A- 
way  with  such  foolery  from  the  church  of  God!  It 
is   a   disgrace   to   the  Christian  name,  that   it  ever 
has  been  mentioned ;  and  that  it  has  found  abettors 
among  the  followers  of  Jesus  !    But  when  the  church 
shall  be  visited  with  the  full  blaze  of  that  millennial  light, 
and  purity,  and  truth,  such  a  doctrine  will  then  be  heard 
no  more  at  all  in  her.     There  will  be  no  hesitation 


188 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


then  to  praise  the  name  of  Jesus  in  a  song.  All  will 
then  be  willing  to  obey  the  appointment  of  God  the  Fa- 
ther, in  every  part  of  their  worship  : — 

The  honored  name  they'll  all  avow; 
At  Jesus'  name  the  knee  they'll  bow. 
The  Father's  name,  to  praise  and  bless, 
They'll  Jesus'  sovereignty  confess ! 

Yes,  then,  and  now,  and  till  then,  ever  and  always, 
will  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  raise  the  loud  songs  of 
glory,  and  gladness,  and  thanksgiving,  to  the  exalted 
name  of  Jesus.  "And  I  beheld,  and  heard  the  voice  of 
many  angels  round  about  the  throne,  and  the  living  crea- 
tures and  the  elders:  and  the  number  of  them  was  ten 
thousand  times  ten  thousand;  and  thousands  of  thousands 
saying  with  a  loud  voice.  Worthy  is  the  Lamb  that  was 
slain,  to  receive  power,  and  riches,  and  wisdom,  and 
strength,  and  honor,  and  glory,  and  blessing.  And 
every  creature  which  is  in  heaven,  and  on  the  earth, 
and  under  the  earth,  and  such  as  are  in  the  sea,  and  all 
that  are  in  them,  heard  I  saying.  Blessing,  and  honor, 
and  glory,  and  power,  be  unto  him  that  sitteth  upon  the 
throne,  and  unto  the  Lamb,  for  ever  and  ever,'* — Yes, 
Jesus,  the  Lamb  that  was  slain  will  be  praised  in  a  song 
by  his  blood-bought  people  as  long  as  they  have  breath 
and  being.  Dr.  Pressly  might  as  well  think  to  stem  the 
ocean's  tide,  or  stay  the  rolling  thunder  in  its  pathway 
cross  the  heavens,  as  that  he  will  prevent  those  redeem- 
ed by  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  from  praising,  in  their 
songs,  the  precious  name  of  Jesus,  their  gloriously  exalted 
Saviour  and  King! 

Again  :  the  book  of  Psalms  was  not  designed  to  be 
the  Psalmody  of  the  church;  for  if  she  is  confined  to  their 
exclusive  use  she  cannot  do  her  whole  duty  to  her  Lord 
and  Redeemer.    It  is  the  imperative  duty  of  the  church, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


189 


to  confess,  at  all  times,  and  in  every  part  of  her  worship, 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  Her  own 
safety,  and  her  obligations  to  Jesus  her  divine  Lord  and 
King  demand  this — **Ye  are  the  light  of  the  world  " — 
"Whosoever  therefore  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him 
will  I  confess  also  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven. 
But  whosoever  will  deny  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also 
deny  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven."  No  man, 
nor  the  church  of  God  should  ever  refuse  to  confess  Je- 
sus Christ.  But  by  reading  or  singing  from  the  book  of 
Psalms  we  can  never  confess,  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ. — 
The  Jews  use  these  Psalms  while  they  bitterly  deny  it. 
While  in  the  regular  use  of  these  Psalms  "they  agreed, 
that  if  any  man  did  confess  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ  he 
should  be  put  out  of  the  synagogue."  There  are  many 
prophecies  in  the  Psalms  respecting  the  Messiah ;  but 
none  of  these  prophecies  confess  that  Jesus  is  that  Mes- 
siah. The  Old  Testament  Scriptures  tell  us  every  where 
and  in  various  ways,  that  the  Messiah  shall  come.  But 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures  tell  us,  that  he  is  come, 
and  point  us  to  him,  saying,  This  man,  Jesus  of  Naza- 
reth, the  son  of  Joseph  and  Mary,  is  he  of  whom  Moses 
in  the  law,  and  the  prophets  did  write.  This  the  Jews 
denied,  and  agreed  to  put  every  man  out  of  the  syna" 
gogue  who  would  confess  that  this  Jesus  was  the  Messi- 
ah. God  the  Father  spoke  in  an  audible  voice  from  hea- 
ven to  tell  the  people,  that  this  Jesus  was  the  promised 
Messiah.  John  says,  ''These  things  are  written  that  ye 
might  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, — or  Messiah — the 
Son  of  God."  Peter  says,  "Therefore  let  all  the  house 
of  Israel  know  assuredly,  that  God  hath  made  that  same 
Jesus,  whom  ye  have  crucified,  both  Lord  and  Christ." 
The  grand  object  of  all  this  testimony,  which  is  so  abun- 
dant in  the  New  Testament,  is  to  bring  the  people  to 


190 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


believe  and  confess,  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  the  son  of 
Joseph  and  Mary,  is  the  Messiah  promised  in  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures.  And  this  is  the  imperative  duty 
of  the  church,  and  in  every  part  of  her  worship,  to  con- 
fess, that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah ;  and  to  praise  Jesus  as  that 
Messiah — to  praise  Jesus  as  the  Redeemer  promised  to 
the  church  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  Dr.  Pressly  indeed 
views  this  matter  in  a  very  different  light.  And  his  rep- 
resentation, I  consider  a  rare  specimen  of  superlative 
nonsense,  and  very  erroneous  interpretation.  For  he 
represents  the  Old  Testament  church  as  praising  God, 
not  for  a  'promised  Kedeemer;  but  for  a  Redeemer  who 
had  already  come  :  and  men  as  trusting  in  Jesus  before 
they  had  ever  heard  of  Jesus.  P.  94.  He  says  to  Dr. 
Ralston,  *'But  is  it  true,  that  the  Psalms  present  the  Sa- 
viour to  the  view  of  our  faith,  as  one  who  was  yet  to 
come?  Is  it  really  so,  my  venerable  Father,  permit  me 
respectfully  to  ask, — is  it  the  truth,  that  in  the  Psalms 
given  to  the  church  under  the  Old  Testament,  she  prai- 
sed God  for  a  promised  Redeemer,  who  had  not  yet 
come]"  Very  soothingly  he  says,  '^my  venerable  Fath- 
er;'' but  impliedly  he  says,  My  venerable  Father,  per- 
mit me  respectfully  to  say,  that  you  are  a  ;  for  it 

is  not  the  truth,  that  the  church  praised  God  for  a  Re* 
deemer  who  had  not  yet  come.  Well  my — not  vener- 
able— but,  my  dear  Doctor !  "it  is  really  so."  It  is  the 
truth,  that  the  church  under  the  Old  Testament  praised 
God  for  a  promised  Redeemer  who  had  not  yet  come. 
Doctor,  had  He  come?  "No."  Did  the  church  praise 
God  for  him]  "Yes."  Well  then,  she  praised  God  for 
a  Redeemer  who  had  not  yet  come.  Doctor,  is  it  true- 
that  their  Psalms  represented  to  them,  that  the  Redee- 
mer had  come?  "Yes."  Well  then,  their  Psalms  taught 
them  a  positive  falsehood ;  for  he  had  not  come,  Doc- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


191 


tor,  do  you  not  know,  that  prophetical  language  always 
speaks  of  something  future,  no  matter  what  tense  the 
verbs  may  be  in,  whether  it  speaks  of  something  that 
has  occurred,  is  occurring,  or  will  occur]  If  it  did  not 
speak  of  something  future,  it  would  not  be  prophetical 
language;  but  historical.  When  the  church  under  the 
Old  Testament  sung  these  words  :  "The  assembly  of  the 
wicked  have  enclosed  me ;  they  pierced  my  hands  and 
feet;''  they  never  imagined  that  this  had  occurred  to  the 
Messiah.  Applying  it  to  the  Redeemer,  they  knew  it 
told  them  of  something,  that  would  take  place  at  some 
future  time.  Doctor,  did  you  think,  that  they  thought  it 
had  taken  place  already?  Do  you  not  know  that  all 
such  language  awakened  in  the  people  an  expectation  of 
something  to  come ;  and  led  them  to  look  forward  to 
the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  implied  in  the  prophecy] 
Doctor,  did  you  not  know  this]  and  you  a  Professor  of 
Theology!  and  an  expounder  of  the  Bible!  And  if  you 
did  know  it,  why  do  you  represent  it  otherwise]  Why 
do  you  represent  the  Old  Testament  church  as  praising 
God,  not  for  a  promised  Redeemer;  but  for  a  Redeemer 
who  had  already  come]  Doctor,  does  the  cause  you 
plead,  need  such  arguments;  or  is  it  only  your  way  of 
defending  it]  And  then  look  at  the  bottom  of  p.  95, 
you  say,  **Ever  since  the  first  promise  of  a  Savior  was 
given  to  our  lost  world  Jesus  Christ  has  been  the  only 
hope  of  sinful  man.  By  faith  in  him,  as  exhibited  to 
tiiem  upon  the  infallible  testimony  of  God,  believers  were 
saved  under  the  Old  Testament ;" — Yes  Doctor,  but  Je- 
sus Christ  was  never  exhibited  until  he  was  born  at 
Bethlehem  ;  and  how  could  men  have  faith  in  him  before 
they  had  heard  of  him]  They  had  faith  in  a  promised 
Messiah ;  but,  before  they  could  have  faith  in  Jesus  they 
must  learn  that  J  esus  is  that  Messiah ;  and  this  they  could 


192 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


never  learn  until  Jesus  came.  And  my  dear  Doctor! 
will  you  allow  me  respectfully  to  tell  you,  that  no  man 
ever  believed  in  Jesus  before  he  was  born.  And  even 
then  none  believed  in  him  until  they  had  sufficient  evi- 
dence, that  he  was  the  Messiah,  the  promised  Saviour, 
The  Shepherds  believed  it,  because  the  angel  told  them 
it  was  so.  The  devout  Simeon  believed  in  Jesus;  but 
not  until  it  was  revealed  to  him  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  that 
the  child  Jesus  was  that  promised  Messiah  in  whom  he 
had  been  trusting  all  his  life.  He  had  saving  faith  ;  and 
was  justified  on  account  of  his  faith  in  a  promised  Re- 
deemer, long  before  he  believed  in  Jesus  as  that  Redee- 
mer: for  he  never  believed  in  Jesus,  until  Jesus  came. 
And  you  see  Doctor,  it  is  not  true,  That  ever  since  the 
first  promise  of  a  Saviour,  Jesus  Christ  was  the  only 
hope  of  sinful  man.  Because  he  was  not  the  hope  of  any 
man  until  he  came  into  the  world,  and  was  made  known 
to  men  as  that  Redeemer  who  was  promised.  And  all 
that  is  written  in  the  New  Testament;  and  all  the  mir- 
acles wrought  by  the  Saviour,  and  by  his  Apostles  ;  and 
all  the  miraculous  events  connected  with  his  birth,  life, 
death,  resurrection,  and  ascension,  were  designed  to 
convince  men,  that  this  Jesus  was  the  Redeemer;  and 
to  persuade  them  to  put  their  trust  in  him.  And  if  men 
always  trusted  in  Jesus  before  he  came,  what  was  the 
use  of  all  this,  to  lead  them  to  do  what  they  were  doing 
already]  Why  my  dear  Doctor!  your  representation  is 
most  exquisite  foolery;  and  if  you  were  to  try  your  skill 
again,  I  do  not  think  you  could  beat  this  :  Where  you 
represent  the  Old  Testament  church  as  praising  Grod,  not 
for  a  promised  Redeemer ;  but  for  a  Redeemer  already 
come! — and  where  you  teach,  that  the  Psalms  do  not 
speak  of  a  promised  Redeemer;  but  of  a  Redeemer  al- 
ready come! — and  where  you  teach,  that  men  trusted  in 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


193 


Jesus  before  he  was  manifested,  and  before  they  ever 
heard  any  thing  about  Jesus!  It  must  be  a  poor  cause? 
Doctor,  that  requires  such  reasoning. 

We  say  then,  if  the  church  be  confined  to  the  book 
of  Psalms,  she  can  never  in  her  songs  of  praise,  con- 
fess, that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh.  She  may 
do  it  in  the  other  parts  of  her  w^orship;  but  she  can  nev- 
er do  it  in  her  Psalmody.  And  they  that  deliberately 
adopt  this  Psalmody,  are  in  this  part  of  their  worship 
refusing  to  discharge  a  duty  which  their  divine  Lord 
and  Master  has  enjoined  upon  them.  The  Apostle 
John  says,  *'Many  deceivers  are  entered  into  the  world, 
who  confess  not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh. 
This  is  a  deceiver  and  an  antichrist.''  It  is  not  merely 
those  who  deny  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh, 
that  the  Apostle  reproves  here;  but  those  who  do  not 
confess  this  truth.  Their  sin,  is  a  sin  of  omission.  And 
Psalmonites  are  chargeable  with  this  sin  of  omission,  in. 
one  part  of  their  worship;  for  in  singing  praise  they  al- 
ways refuse  to  confess,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh.  And  the  Jews,  who  deny  this  truth  can  sing 
with  them — can  use  the  same  language  they  use — and 
confess  all  that  they  confess,  in  any  of  their  songs  of 
praise.  We  do  not  say,  that  Psalmonites,  in  this  part 
of  their  worship,  deny,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the 
flesh:  we  only  say  they  do  not  confess  it:  and  it  is 
their  duty  to  confess  it  in  this  part  of  their  worship  as 
well  as  in  any  other.  Neither  do  we  say,  that  they  are 
the  deceivers  mentioned  by  the  Apostle;  but  ouly,  that 
in  this  part  of  their  worship,  on  this  point,  they  act  like 
these  deceivers:  they  conform  to  them  in  refusing  to 
make  this  confession,  whatever  their  thoughts  and  feel- 
ings may  be.  And  it  is  not  enough,  for  Christians  to 
feel  and  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh; 
17 


194 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


they  should  be  willing  to  confess  it  with  their  voice  in 
every  pai't  of  the  worship  of  Jesus  Christ.  While  they 
confess  it  in  their  sermons  and  their  prayers;  they 
ought  to  confess  it  in  their  praises  too.  But  Psalmonites 
can  never  do  it,  for  this  truth  is  not  contained  in  the 
book  of  Psalms.  ^'Hereby  know  ye  the  Spirit  of  God. 
Every  spirit  that  confesseth,  that  Jesus  Chiist  is  come 
in  the  fiesh  is  of  God:  and  every  spirit  that  confesseth 
not  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh  is  not  of  God; 
and  this  is  that  sjnrit  of  antichrist  whereof  ye  have  heard 
that  it  should  come;  and  even  now  already  is  it  in  the 
world."  AVe  see,  that  the  Apostle  makes  this  confes- 
sion a  very  solemn  and  important  matter.  It  is  the 
criterion  by  which  to  distinguish  between  the  Spirit  of 
God,  and  the  spirit  of  antichrist.  It  is  surely  very  im- 
portant, then,  to  show  in  every  part  of  our  worship,  that 
w^e  are  influenced  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  not  by  the 
spirit  of  antichrist.  But  the  Psalmonite  cannot  do  it; 
for  the  Jew  can  sing  with  him,  while  he  is  influenced  by 
the  spirit  of  antichrist:  and  none  could  tell  from  their 
practice,  whether  they  are  not  both  influenced  by  the 
same  spirit.  If  the  Psalmonite  shows,  that  he  is  not 
influenced  by  the  spirit  of  antichrist,  he  must  do  it  in 
some  other  way  than  by  singing  his  Psalms.  And  when 
the  Psalmonite  is  influenced  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  why 
does  he  not  show  it  in  his  Psalmody,  by  confessing  in 
his  songs  of  praise,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh? 
In  his  spirit  he  confesses  it;  but  in  his  w^ords  he  does  not 
confess  it:  thus  his  language  does  not  express  the  feel- 
ings of  his  heart.  Now,  his  Redeemer  never  required 
him  to  have  this  discrepancy  between  his  feelings  and 
his  language.  Whatever  truth  he  believes  in  his  heart, 
he  may  confess  with  his  voice,  and  in  praising  God  as 
well  as  at  any  other  time.    Every  truth  proper  to  be  be- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


195 


lieved,  in  praising  God,  is  proper  to  be  expressed  in 
praising  God.  But  Psalmonites,  in  praising  God, 
refuse  to  express  this  very  important  truth;  and  never 
once  acknowledge  that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh. 
In  their  songs  of  praise  they  can  never  copy  after  the 
example  of  their  blessrd  Redeemer,  v^hen  brought  be- 
fore the  judgment  seat — "Again  the  high  priest  asked 
him,  and  said  unto  him,  Art  thou  the  Christ  the  son  of  the 
Blessed]  And  Jesus  said,  I  am."  In  all  their  songs 
of  praise,  from  Sabbath  to  Sabbath,  and  from  year  to 
year,  they  can  never  make  this  confession  of  their  divine 
Mast.er — that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  the  «on  of  the  Blessed. 
And  what  kind  of  a  system  is  it,  which  teaches  them, 
that  in  one  part  of  their  worship,  they  must  never 
make  the  same  confession  respecting  Jesus  which  lie 
made  himself?  And  how  can  they  believe,  that  such  a 
system  has  its  foundation  in  the  word  of  God?  And 
how  can  they  believe,  that  Jesus  Christ  has  appointed 
for  them  a  Psalmody  which  prevents  them,  from  ever 
using  his  own  narne,  in  any  of  their  songs  of  praise? — 
and  which  prevents  them  from  confessing  in  their  songs, 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  come  in  the  flesh — and  which  pre- 
vents them  fiom  following  the  example  of  their  Re- 
deemer in  one  part  of  their  worship;  so  that  they  can 
never  confess  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ  the  son  of  the 
Blessed.  It  is  manifest,  they  never  learned  to  believe 
such  things,  from  the  teachings  of  the  word  of  God. 
And  how  can  they  believe,  that  in  singing  the  praise  of 
God,  their  tongues  should  never  confess  that  Jesus  Christ 
is  Lord  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father?  And  how  can 
they  believe,  that  they  are  in  the  discharge  of  their  duty> 
when  in  one  part  of  the  worship  of  God,  they  refuse  to 
do  this?  Do  they  think,  when  they  get  to  heaven,  they 
will  refuse  to  acknowledge,  in  their  songs  of  praise,  that 


196 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Jesus  Christ  is  Lard,  to  the  glory  of  God  the  Father! 
And  if  they  will  acknowledge  it  in  their  songs  in  heaven, 
why  may  they  not  acknowledge  it  in  their  songs  on 
earth]  If  it  is  sung  with  divine  acceptance  in  heaven,  it 
may  be  sung  with  divine  acceptance  upon  earth.  And 
the  Bible  says,  that  every  tongue  shall  confess  it,  both  in 
heaven  and  upon  earth;  and  ought  not  the  church  of 
God  to  confess  it  in  her  songs  of  praise]  And  how  can 
any  hold  themselves  blameless,  while  they  refuse  to  do 
this]  The  word  of  God  commands  us,  to  "Give  unto  the 
Lord  the  glory  due  unto  his  name;"  and  God  has  told  us 
what  will  be  for  the  glory  of  his  name — He  says,  for 
every  tongue  to  confess,  that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  will 
be  for  the  glory  of  God  the  Father.  Now,  if  in  our 
songs  of  praise,  we  refuse  to  make  this  confession,  we 
refuse  to  give  unto  God  the  glory  due  unto  his  name;  and 
we  cannot  be  blameless.  When  God  has  made  known 
to  us  the  way  in  which  we  should  glorify  him,  if  we  re- 
fuse to  adopt  that  way  we  cannot  be  guiltless.  It  is  set- 
ting at  naught  the  authority  of  God;  and  assuming  that 
our  wisdom  is  superior  to  his;  and  that  we  know  better 
how  the  Lord  ought  to  be  glorified  than  he  does  himself! 
And  Psalmonites  are  by  no  means  innocent  in  this 
matter,  because  they  refuse  to  glorify  God  in  the  manner 
which  he  has  prescribed.  He  tells  them,  that  they  are 
to  glorify  him,  in  their  songs  of  praiso,  by  confessing 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord;  but  this  they  refuse  to  do. 
And  hence  they  refuse  the  way  appointed  by  infinite 
Wisdom;  and  regulate  their  conduct,  in  this  matter,  by 
their  own  notions,  and  prejudices,  and  groundless  as- 
sumptions. But  their  notions,  and  assumptions  do  not 
render  them  innocent  while  they  are  refusing  to  obey  the 
authority  of  Heaven.  And  there  is  positively  nothing- 
plainer,  than  that  they  cannot  do  their  duty  in  this  part 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


of  the  worship  of  God,  while  they  use  nothing  but  the 
book  of  Psalms.  Their  character,  as  christians,  requires 
them  to  have  in  their  Psalmody  a  great  quantity  of  di- 
vine truth,  which  is  not  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms; 
and  while  they  use  nothing  but  this,  they  must  be  defi- 
cient in  their  duty.  Many  other  considerations  might 
be  presented,  all  proving  that  the  Church,  in  order  to  the 
discharge  of  her  duty,  must  use  other  songs  of  praise,  be- 
sides those  contained  in  the  book  of  Psalms:  and  that  her 
divine  Lord  and  King  never  made  such  arrangements 
for  his  own  church,  as  would  render  it  impossible  for 
her,  to  do  her  duty  towards  himself.  And  as  he  has  not 
given  by  inspiration  those  songs  of  praise,  which  he  re- 
quires her  to  use,  it  follows,  that  he  requires  her  to  pre- 
pare them  for  herself:  and  hence  they  must  be  prepared 
by  uninspired  men.  Unless  the  church  uses  songs  of 
this  kind  she  cannot  do  her  duty.  Her  divine  Re- 
deemer enjoins  it  upon  her  to  employ  such  songs  of 
praise  in  his  worship.  And  all  the  considerations  pre- 
sented, prove  it  to.be  the  will  of  God,  that  his  church 
should  employ,  in  his  worship,  songs  of  praise  composed 
by  uninspired  men. 


I?* 


CHAPTER  VII. 


Same  authority  for  using  our  own  language  in  Praise  as 
IN  Prayer — History  of  Psalmody. 


It  is  almost  a  universal  sentiment,  that  when  the  heart 
is  filled  with  reverence,  love  and  gratitude  to  God,  we 
may  give  expression  to  our  feelings  in  such  language 
as  we  may  be  able  to  command:  that  we  may  pour  forth 
our  adoration  and  thanksgiving  to  the  Author  of  our 
mercies,  in  the  use  of  our  own  words,  without  waiting 
to  recite  the  words  of  Scripture.  It  is  granted,  that  the 
people  of  God  may  use  their  own  language  in  praying 
to  Him;  and  that  in  their  prayers  they  are  to  praise  Him. 
And  if  it  is  proper  for  them  to  sai/  his  praises  in  their 
own  language,  why  may  they  not  also  sing  his  praises 
in  their  own  language]  If  a  man  may  praise  God  in  his 
ownw^ords  without  music,  why  may  he  not  praise  him 
in  his  own  words  with  music]  Do  not  both  Scripture 
and  reason  teach  us,  that  the  language  suitable  for  pray- 
er, is  also  suitable  for  praise]  and  suitable  to  be  used 
in  singing  praise]  It  is  very  difficult  to  show,  that  while 
we  may  use  our  own  language  in  prayer,  it  is  improper 
to  use  it  in  praise.  Dr.  Pressly  has  tried  it;  but  it  is  an 
entire  failure.  Commencing  on  p.  119,  he  says,  "This 
reasoning  is  plausible,  and  is  well  adapted  to  influence 
minds,  whose  views  of  propriety  are  regulated  rather 
by  considerations  of  humnn  prudence,  than  by  the  au- 
thority of  God,  *  *  But  we  have  already  had  occasion 
to  remind  the  reader,  that  in  matters  connected  with  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


199 


worship  of  God,  the  decisions  of  human  wisdom  are  often 
found  to  be  at  variance  with  the  divine  apointment.'* 
True,  but  where  is  there  any  divine  appointment  autho- 
rizing us  to  use  our  own  language  in  prayer,  and  forbid- 
ding us  to  use  it  in  praise]  Just  nowhere.  And  the 
Doctor  knows  this;  for  if  there  had  been  any  divine  ap- 
pointment to  this  effect  he  would  have  pointed  u^  to  it;  but 
this  he  has  not  done.  His  language,  indeed,  shows,  that 
he  assumes  there  is  such  an  appointment;  but,  then,  his 
assumption  is  not  worth  a  fig;  for  he  assujnes  and  asserts 
a  great  deal  which  still  need  to  be  proved.  But  though 
he  cannot  bring  ariy  divine  appointment  of  this  nature, 
yet  he  tries  to  manufacture  one  which  he  thinks  will 
answer  his  purpose.— "However  plausible  this  argument 
may  appear  at  first  view  a  little  examination  will  satisfy 
the  honest  enquirer  after  truth,  that  it  is  entirely  falla- 
cious, the  things  which  are  comparetl  are  dissimilar,  and 
consequently  the  reasoning  is  inconclusive  ^  let 
us  notice  a  little  more  in  detail  some  particulars  in  which 
they  differ." 

*'In  prayer  we  come  to  God  to  ask  for  those  things 
which  we  need;  but  in  praise  we  ascribe  to  him  the 
glory  which  is  due  unto  his  name/' — Here  he  leaches, 
that  in  prayer  we  are  not  to  ascribe  to  God  the  glory 
which  is  due  unto  his  name!  And  I  would  ask  every  candid 
christian  if  this  is  not  contrary  to  the  teachings  of  the 
whole  word  of  God]  In  prayer  we  are  not  to  give  unto 
God  the  glory  due  unto  his  name!  Is  it  possible,  that  a 
man  with  the  Bible  before  him,  sittino:  in  a  theolotrical 
chair,  can  believe  this  doctrine]  And  this,  he  says,  is  one 
point  wherein  prayer  and  praise  differ,  that  in  praise  we 
are  to  give  unto  God  the  glory  due  unto  his  name;  but 
in  prayer  we  are  not!  Yet  every  one  knows,  "that  in 
our  prayers  we  are  to  praise  God;''  and  if  we  are  not  to 


200 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


give  unto  him  the  glory  due  unto  his  name,  what  kind  of 
glory  are  we  to  give?  The  theological  Professor  will 
Burely  be  able  to  define  it.  And  the  next  edition  of 
his  curious  work  that  comes  forth,  I  hope,  will  enlighten 
us  on  this  subject.  This  is  a  part  of  his  divine  appoint- 
ment, which  forbids  us  to  use  our  own  language  in  prai- 
sing God. — "As  our  situation  and  circumstances  are  ever 
varying,  our  wants  are  very  different  at  one  time  from 
what  they  are  at  another.  Our  petitions  must  conse- 
quently be  framed  in  accordance  with  our  wants.  But 
God  is  unchangeable  and  his  praise  is  always  the  same. 
That  glory  which  is  proper  to  be  ascribed  to  his  name 
at  one  time^  will  always  be  proper."— Here  he  flatly 
contradicts  what  he  taught  above.  He  taught  there,  that 
the  glory  given  in  praise,  Is  not  to  be  given  in  prayer; 
but  now  he  says,  the  glory  given  at  one  time  is  always 
proper:  hence  it  is  proper  in  prayer  as  well  as  in  praise. 
And  he  is  right  here  though  he  does  contradict  himself: 
because  the  glory  ascribed  to  God  in  praise,  is  suitable 
to  be  ascribed  to  him  in  prayer.  And  this  shows,  that 
there  is  not  the  difference  between  these  two  ordinances 
which  the  Doctor  alleged;  and  that  therefore  if  we  may 
use  our  own  language  in  the  one,  so  may  we  in  the  other . 
The  Doctor's  reasoning  in  this  paragraph  involves  aprin- 
ciple,  which  is  at  war  with  the  plainest  teachings  of  the 
word  of  God,  and  at  war  with  the  grateful  feelings  of 
every  believer.  It  is,  that  God  is  to  be  praised  for  what 
he  is  in  himself;  but  not  to  be  praised  on  account  of  what 
he  does  unto  us.  Were  he  to  admit  this,  it  would  be 
admitting  that  our  praises  as  well  as  our  prayers,  ought 
to  be  adapted,  in  some  measure,  to  our  circumstances. 
Hence  he  teaches,  that  in  our  praises  we  are^to  disregard 
the  Lord's  dealings  with  ourselves,  and  with  the  church? 
and  praise  him  only  for  what  he  is  in  himself.   And  there 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


201 


is  nothing  in  plainer  contradiction  to  the  word  of  God 
than  this.  No  less  than  four  times  in  a  single  psalm  do 
we  find  the  following:  "Oh  that  men  would  praise  the 
Lord  for  his  goodness,  and  for  his  wonderful  works  to 
the  children  of  men."  And  such  is  the  language  of  every 
heart  grateful  for  the  Lord^s  mercies. — "What  shall  I 
render  to  the  Lord,  for  all  his  kindness  shown" — "Bless 
the  Lord  O  my  soul  and  forget  not  all  his  benefits'* — "I 
will  sing  of  mercy  and  judgment;  unto  thee  O  Lord  will 
I  sing."  What  a  miserable  system  it  must  be,  when  for 
its  support,  the  plain  teachings  of  God^s  word  must 
be  gainsaid!  And,  indeed,  I  am  satisfied,  that  ta- 
king the  Doctor's  whole  work  on  Psalmody,  there  are 
principles  involved  in  it,  which  would  require  the  suppres- 
sion of  about  one  half  of  the  system  of  revealed  truth. 
Readers  in  general  do  not  observe  it,  because  they  dc' 
not  examine  into  the  principles  implied  in  his  argument?. 
And  his  arguments  too,  have  the  geniblance  of  truth, 
while  error  and  sophistry,  both  lie  under  the  deceitful 
covering.  But  if  all  augmentation  of  this  description 
were  taken  out  of  his  work,  there  would  be  but  a  very 
small  portion  remaining.  And  what  would  remain,  would 
deceive  nobody;  but  the  Doctor's  cause  would  then  have 
a  very  slim  support. 

His  2nd  and  3d  positions  to  prove,  that  though  we  use 
our  own  language  in  prayer,  yet  we  may  not  use  it  in 
praise  is, — "That  since  in  singing  God's  praise  a  written 
form  is  necessary,  there  is  provided  for  the  church,  in 
the  word  of  God  a  book  of  Psalms  while  there  is  no 
book  of  prayers.  This  is  a  fact  which  deserves  special 
attention." — And  it  is  a  fact  too,  that  God  has  provided, 
for  his  church  a  book  of  Job,  and  a  book  of  Proverbs, 
and  a  book  of  Isaiah;  but  do  these  facts  prove,  that  any 
one  of  these  books  was  given  to  the  church  to  constitute 


202 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


her  Psalmody'?  Here  again,  the  Doctor  has  to  assume 
the  very  thing  about  which  the  controversy  exists.  He 
assumes y  that  God  has  provided  for  his  church  her  system 
of  psalmody,  but  has  not  provided  her  system  of  prayer: 
and  thus  proves,  that  He  does  not  allow  her  to  use  her 
own  language  in  praise  though  she  may  use  it  in  prayer. 
This  is  his  unwarranted  assumption  on  which  he  has  al- 
ways to  rest  for  support.  And  the  very  thing  he  ought 
to  prove;  because  the  very  thing  we  pointedly  deny. 
We  know,  that  God  has  given  to  his  church  a  book  of 
Psalms;  but  we  deny,  that  it  was  given  for  the  purpose 
of  constituting  her  Psalmody.  And  that  it  was  not  has 
been  proved  from  the  plain  declarations  of  the  word  of 
God;  and  from  the  insufficiency  of  the  Psalms  to  meet 
the  wants  of  the  Christian  church,  in  her  songs  of  praise- 
And  we  maintain,  that  there  is  no  more  provision  made 
for  the  Psalmody  of  the  church,  than  there  is  for  the 
prayers  of  the  church.  Every  one,  at  all  familiar  with 
the  book  of  Psalms,  knows,  that  it  is  emphatically  a  book 
of  prayers.  It  is  so  much  so,  that  if  the  Doctor's  notion 
is  correct  which  makes  such  a  difference  between  praise 
and  prayer,  that  the  language  suitable  for  the  one  is  not 
suitable  for  the  other,  then,  there  would  be  a  large  por- 
tion of  the  book  of  Psalms  altogether  unsuitable  for 
praise;  because  a  large  portion  of  it  is  the  language  of 
prayer.  And  it  is  entirely  by  the  aid  of  this  groundless 
assumption  that  the  Doctor  endeavors  to  ward  off  the 
force  of  the  argument,  which  we  draw  from  our  practice 
in  prayer.  Hear  him  again: — ''men  may  say,  that  as  we 
may  use  our  own  language  in  prayer  so  may  we  in  praie; 
but  the  fact  that  God  has  himself  provided  for  us  a  book 
of  Psalms,  while  he  has  given  us  no  book  of  Prayers, 
rebukes  the  unwarranted  assertion." — And  often  he  re- 
peats it,  that  God  has  given  the  book  of  Psalms  to  con- 


MORTON  OiN  PSALMODY. 


203 


stitute  the  Psalmody  of  the  church,  while  he  offers  not  a 
particle  of  proof.  This  unfounded  figment,  hatched  in  a 
Psalmonistic  nest,  is  pushed  forward  on  every  occasion, 
to  sanction  his  absurdities;  and  to  set  aside  the  teachings 
of  both  Scripture  and  reason.  For  both  Scripture  and 
reason  teach,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Christian  church 
to  use  songs  of  praise  containing  matter  which  is  not 
found  in  the  book  of  Psalms.  Just  as  the  prayers  of  the 
church  ought  to  embody  the  peculiar  revelations  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  correspond  to  her  character,  so 
ought  also  her  songs  of  praise.  Her  prayers  and  praises 
ought  to  harmonize;  but  if  her  praises  are  taken  only  from 
the  book  of  Psalms  this  is  impossible.  But  in  order 
that  it  may  be  possible,  God  has  made  the  same  provi- 
sion for  his  church  in  relation  to  both  these  ordinances^ 
She  has  the  book  of  Psalms  to  aid  her  in  botii.  She  has 
the  whole  word  of  God  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testament,  to  aid  her  in  both.  And 
nowhere  is  there  any  intimation,  that  provision  has  been 
made  for  the  one,  which  has  not  been  made  for  the  other. 
The  church  might  just  as  well  be  confined  to  the  prayers 
of  inspiration  as  the  praises  of  inspiration.  The  pray, 
ers  contained  in  the  Bible  would  form  a  system  of  prayer 
as  well  adapted  to  the  w^ants  of  the  church,  as  the  songs 
contained  there,  would  be  adapted  to  her  wants,  as  a 
system  of  praise. 

The  Doctor's  4th  position  is  based  upon  the  same  fig- 
ment. He  says,  ^' And  why,  with  reverence  I  would  ask 
did  not  the  great  Prophet  of  the  church  furnish  in  the 
New  Testament  a  book  of  sacred  hymns,  or  direct  some 
one  of  the  Apostles  to  perform  this  service]  The  only 
rational  answer,  which  can  be  given  to  this  inquiry, 
is,  that  he  did  not  consider  it  necessary.  He  had  alrea- 
dy raised  up  a  sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel,  whom  he  had 


204 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


qualified  for  the  work,  and  by  whom  he  had  provided 
for  his  church,  such  a  collection  of  psalms  and  hymns 
and  songs,  as  to  his  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness 
seemed  proper.'' — This  is  precisely  the  same  tale  over 
again,  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  given  to  be  the  Psal- 
mody of  the  Christian  Churchj  therefore,  there  is  no 
book  of  Psalms  in  the  New  Testament.  But  is  this 
notion  either  Scriptural  or  rational:  That,  hundreds  of 
years  before  the  existence  of  the  Christian  Church,  a 
sweet  Psalmist  of  Israel  was  raised  up  to  prepare  for  her 
a  system  of  Psalmody;  and  then  at  her  organization  Apos- 
tles and  Evangelists  had  to  be  raised  up  to  prepare  for  her 
every  thing  else  essential  to  her  existence  and  character] 
If  the  Psalmody  of  the  Christian  church  was  prepared 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  why  might  not  every 
thing  else  appertaining  to  her  have  been  prepared  at 
the  same  time]  It  may  be  replied,  that  her  existence  and 
peculiar  character  depend  upon  the  advent  of  the  Mes- 
siah; so  that  nothing,  which  is  peculiar  to  her  as  a  Chris- 
tian church,  could  be  provided  before  the  coming  of 
Christ.  Every  thing  that  enters  into  the  constitution  of 
her  character  as  a  Christian  church,  is  based  upon  the 
fact,  that  Christ  has  come.  Therefore  all  that  enters  in- 
to the  formation  of  her  character,  must  be  provided  after 
the  coming  of  Christ. 

Well  then,  does  the  Psalmody  of  the  Christian  church 
constitute  no  part  of  her  character]  Most  assuredly  it 
does;  and  a  very  important  part.  And  hence,  her  Psalm- 
ody being  one  part  of  her  peculiar  character,  it  was  im- 
possible for  it  to  be  provided  before  the  coming  of 
Christ;  because  all  that  enters  into  the  formation  of  her 
chai'acter  results  from  that  event.  "A  sweet  Psalmist  of 
Israel,"  then,  could  not  prepare  anything,  which  consti- 
tutes a  part  of  the  character  of  the  Christian  church;  be- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


205 


cause  every  part  of  her  character  has  its  complection 
from  the  fact,  that  christ  has  come.  The  entire  charac- 
ter of  the  Christain  church  is  founded  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament Scriptures;  and  every  part  of  her  character  has 
its  foundation  there:  and  her  Psalmody,  constituting  a 
part  of  her  character,  must  have  its  foundation  there: 
and  if  not,  then  it  forms  no  part  of  her  character.  But 
none  would  say  this.  Inasmuch,  then,  as  this  portion  of 
her  character  has  its  foundation  in  the  New  Testament 
Scriptures,  it  could  not  be  prepared  before  these  were 
written:  htnce,  it  could  not  be  prepared  by  a  "sweet 
Psalmist  of  Israel."  Indeed,  the  idea,  that  the  Psalmody 
of  the  Christian  church  was  finished  by  a  "sweet  Psalm- 
ist of  Israel,"  while  nothing  else  appertaining  to  her, 
was  finished  without  the  labors  of  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles, is  to  say  the  least,  entirely  unreasonable:  and  it  is 
unscriptural:  and  it  it  is  positively  impossible;  if  her 
Psalmody  is  what  it  ought  to  be.  Because  it  ought  to 
embody  the  revelations  of  the  New  Testament  Scrip- 
tures; else  it  is  not  adapted  to  the  character  of  the  New 
Testament  church.  But  it  was  impossible  for  a  "sweet 
Psalmist  of  Israel"  to  prepare  a  Psalmody  of  this  kind. 
But  why  did  "the  great  Prophet  of  the  church"  not 
think  it  necessary  to  furnish  a  book  of  Psalms  in  the 
New  Testament]  The  rational  and  scriptural  answer 
to  this,  is  not,  that  he  had  furnished  one  already;  but, 
that  he  qualifies  his  church  with  all  needful  gifts  and 
graces,  and  by  his  word  and  providence  furnishes  her 
with  all  suitable  matter  for  the  performance  of  her  own 
work,  which  is  to  prepare  her  own  songs  of  praise.  This 
is,  and  always  has  been,  the  province  of  the  church;  and 
the  great  Prophet  of  the  church  qualifies  her  for  it;  just 
as  he  qualifies  her  for  the  other  various  duties,  which  he 
has  assigned  to  her.  As  ic  is  her  proper  work  to  pre- 
18 


206 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


pare  her  own  prayers,  so  it  is  her  work  to  prepare 
her  own  songs  of  praise.  The  whole  history,  circum- 
stances and  character  of  the  Christian  church  prove  this 
to  be  the  case.  As  there  are  not,  in  the  word  of  God, 
all  such  prayers  as  her  condition  requires,  so  neither  are 
there  songs  of  praise.  In  respect  to  both,  the  same  pro- 
vision has  been  made  by  her  divine  Head;  and  the  work 
of  appropriate  preparation  devolves  upon  herself.  Every 
consideration  which  proves  it  requisite  for  the  church  to 
prepare  her  own  prayers,  proves  it  also  requisite  for  her 
to  prepare  her  own  songs  of  praise.  It  is  true  indeed 
some  churches  have  attempted  to  confine  themselves  to 
the  songs  of  Scripture;  but  they  might  just  as  well  have 
confined  themselves  to  the  prayers  of  Scripture.  The 
prayers  of  Scripture  would  suit  the  condition  and  cha- 
racter of  the  Christian  church,  just  as  well  as  the  Scrip- 
ture songs  of  praise. 

His  fifth  position  is  founded  upon  the  same  unwarran- 
ted assumption  combined  with  another  view,  which  is 
entirely  fallacious. — "That  as  provision  has  been  made 
in  the  case  of  praise,  which  has  not  been  made  with  re- 
gard to  prayer,  so  there  is  a  promise  of  divine  help  in 
the  performance  of  the  duty  of  prayer,  which  is  not 
given  in  relation  to  praise,  It  is  graciously  promised  by 
Him  who  is  the  hearer  of  prayer,—-*'!  will  pour  upon 
the  house  of  David,  and  upon  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusa- 
lem, the  Spirit  of  grace  and  supplications."  *  ^  *  **But 
there  is  no  promise  in  all  the  New  Testament,  of  the  aid 
of  the  Holy  spirit  as  the  spirit  of  Psalmody  to  aid  us  in 
preparing  our  songs  of  jDraise." — Now  this  reasoning  is 
very  fallacious,  and  very  unscriptural.  Because,  what 
he  says  has  not  been  promised,  has  been  promised  in  re- 
ality and  in  truth,  though  not  in  the  same  words  which 
he  uses.    Every  promise  of  grace  throughout  the  Bible, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


207 


to  aid  the  churcli  in  the  performance  of  her  duty,  is  to 
her  a  promise  of  help  in  preparing  her  songs  of  praise. 
And  a  promise  of  the  spirit,  as  the  Spirit  of  Psalmody, 
is  entirely  unnecessary;  not  because  her  Psalms  were 
already  prepared;  but,  because  it  is  implied,  in  the  pro- 
mise of  the  Spirit,  as  the  spirit  of  prayer.  Every  pro- 
mise of  assistance  in  prayer,  is  a  promise  of  assistance 
in  praise.  And  the  God  of  infinite  wisdom  does  not  do 
what  is  uncalled  for.  When  He  gives  a  promise  of  as- 
sistance m  prayer,  that  is  enough;  because  it  covers  the 
whole  ground  of  praise;  and  another  promise  in  relation 
to  praise  would  have  been  altogether  useless.  When  a 
man  is  qualified  by  grace  for  the  exercise  of  prayer,  then 
he  is  qualified  by  grace  for  the  exercise  of  praise.  If  by 
the  aid  of  the  Spirit  he  composes  a  prayer,  then  by  that 
aid  he  has  composed  a  song  of  praise:  it  may  not  be  in 
verse;  but  the  prayer  has  in  it  the  true  elements  of  praise. 
Every  prayer,  in  all  its  parts,  consists  of  praise  to  God: 
even  the  confession  of  sin,  and  pleading  for  pardon,  is  as- 
cribing glory  to  God.  And  every  prayer  may  be  turned  in- 
to a  song  of  praise.  The  prayer  that  is  appropriate  in  the 
public  congregation,  may  be  used  as  a  song  of  praise  in 
the  public  congregation;  the  prayer  appropriate  in  the 
family,  may  be  used  as  a  song  of  praise  in  the  family:  and 
the  prayer  appropriate  in  the  closet,  may  be  used  as  a 
song  of  praise  in  the  closet.  The  subject-matter  of  all 
prayers,  is  suitable  for  songs  of  praise.  And  every  man 
having  the  slightest  acquaintance  with  the  Bible  knows 
this:  that  what  is  suitable  for  prayer  is  also  suitable  for 
songs  of  praise.  Why  the  greater  part  of  all  the  songs  of 
praise  in  the  Bible  consists  of  prayer.  And  a  more  falla- 
cious and  unscriptural  notion  could  scarcely  be  invented 
than  this — That  there  is  a  promise  of  aid  in  the  exercise 
of  prayer;  but  no  promise  of  aid  in  preparing  our  songs 


208 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


of  praise;  because  all  the  promises  relating  to  the  one, 
are  promises  likewise  relating  to  the  other;  inasmuch 
as  every  prayer  is  virtually  a  song  of  praise. 

The  sum  and  the  substance  of  the  Doctor's  arguments 
on  this  point,  are  contained  in  these  closing  remarks  : — 
"  But  still  it  remains  true,  that  prayer  and  praise  are 
not  only  two  different  ordinances,  but  that  God  regards 
them  as  different;  and  has  made  provision  to  aid  us  in 
the  performance  of  the  duty  of  praise,  which  he  has  not 
furnished  for  our  assistance  in  prayer.  And  consequent- 
ly, to  say,  that  since  it  is  proper  in  prayer  to  use  our 
own  language,  therefore  it  is  right  to  do  the  same  in 
singing  God's  praise,  is  to  reason  after  the  manner  of 
men,  but  not  in  accordance  with  the  wisdom  of  God.'* 
We  readily  admit,  that  prayer  and  praise  are  different 
ordinances;  and  that  God  regards  them  as  different; 
yet  it  does  not  follow,  that  the  same  language  may  not 
be  employed  in  both.  Praying  is  different  from  singing; 
but  the  prayer  and  the  song  of  praise  may  be  one  and 
the  same  thing.  The  very  same  composition  used  in 
prayer  may  be  used  in  singing ;  and  hence,  the  very 
same  language  which  is  suitable  for  prayer,  is  also  suita- 
ble for  a  song  of  praise.  Take  for  example  the  102nd 
Psalm ;  it  is  called  "  A  Prayer  of  the  Afflicted."  And 
who  would  say  that  it  is  not  suitable  to  be  used  in  prayer  ] 
and  who  would  say  that  it  is  not  suitable  to  be  used  in 
singing  praise  ]  And  thus  we  see  clearly,  that  though 
prayer  and  praise  are  different  ordinances,  and  though 
God  regards  them  as  different,  yet  the  very  same  lan- 
guage is  suitable  for  both  ;  and  hence,  our  own  language 
being  suitable  for  prayer,  it  is  also  suitable  for  praise. 
Why  if  the  Doctor's  position  were  correct,  that  the 
language  of  prayer  is  not  suitable  for  praise,  there  would 
be  but  a  small  portion  of  the  book  of  Psalms  suitable 


MORTON   ON  PSALMODY.  209 

for  the  "specific  end"  for  which  he  says  it  was  given; 
because  the  book  of  Psalms  is  in  a  great  measure  a  book 
of  prayers.  The  first  seventy-two  are  called  prayers,  in 
the  20th  verse  of  the  72nd  : — "  The  prayers  of  David, 
the  son  of  Jesse,  are  ended."  This  text,  of  course,  will 
have  no  authority  with  Dr.  Pressly,  for  he  says  he  sings 
the  inspired  Psalms,  and  this  verse  is  not  in  his  Psalms  . 
then,  according  to  his  own  principle,  he  cannot  esteem 
it  as  any  part  of  the  word  of  God.  But  it  will  have 
authority  with  those  who  do  not  take  this  apocryphal 
book  of  the  Psalmonites  as  their  rule  of  faith.  For 
though  the  text  is  no  part  of  the  inspired  Psalms  of  the 
Psalmonites,  yet  it  is  a  part  of  the  inspired  Psalms  con- 
tained  in  the  Bible.  And  it  calls  the  previous  part  of 
the  book  of  Psalms  "  The  Prayers  of  David."  And  the 
92nd  Psalm  is  called  A  prayer  of  Moses,  the  man  of 
God."  Now,  if  the  language  of  prayer  is  not  suitable 
for  praise,  then  the  Doctor  ought  never  to  sing  the  92nd 
Psalm,  nor  the  102nd,  nor  the  17th,  etc.  And  we  have 
upon  record  A  Prayer  of  Habakkuk  the  Prophet;" 
and,  "  To  the  chief  singers  on  my  stringed  instruments," 
he  gives  it  to  be  sung.  And  where  in  all  the  world  did 
Dr.  Pressly  get  his  notion  that  the  language  of  prayer 
is  not  suitable  for  a  song  of  praise  %  Perhaps  he  got  it 
in  his  Psalmonistic  Apocrypha;  but  certain  it  is,  he  did 
not  get  it  in  the  Bible.  And  then,  too,  if  the  same  lan- 
guage was  not  suitable  for  prayer  and  praise,  we  could 
use  the  Lord's  Prayer  for  neither,  because  it  consists  of 
both.  And  it  being  a  model  of  prayer,  it  teaches  us 
that  all  our  prayers  are  to  consist  of  both ;  proving  to  a 
demonstration  that  the  same  language  is  suitable  for 
both.  Perhaps  the  Doctor  would  allege  that  he  never 
said  the  same  language  was  not  suitable  for  both.  But 
if  he  has  not  said  it  his  whole  labor  is  to  prove  it.  For 
IS* 


210 


MORTON  ON  PSALxMODY. 


he  labors  to  prove  '*that  it  is  by  no  means  a  legitimate 
conclusion,  that  as  we  may  use  our  language  in  prayer 
80  may  we  in  praise admitting  that  our  own  language 
is  suitable  for  prayer,  but  maintaining  that  it  is  not  suita- 
ble for  praise.  And  then  in  five  distinct  positions  he 
labors  to  prove  that  prayer  and  praise  are  so  different 
in  their  nature,  that  the  language  suitable  for  the  one  is 
by  no  means  suitable  for  the  other.  But  we  think 
enough  has  been  said  to  show  that  his  view  is  entirely 
indefensible  ;  not  only  without  support,  but  directly  con- 
trary to  the  plain  instructions  of  the  word  of  God.  His 
oft  repeated  assertion  *'that  God  has  made  provision  to 
aid  us  in  the  performance  of  the  duty  of  praise,  which 
he  has  not  furnished  for  our  assistance  in  prayer,''  even 
if  it  were  true,  would  not  prove  that  for  which  he  de- 
signs it :  because  God  may  have  made  provision  for 
praise  which  is  not  made  for  prayer,  and  yet  it  may  be 
proper  for  us  to  use  our  own  language  in  praise  as  well 
as  in  prayer.  More  provision  being  made  for  the  one 
than  for  the  other,  proves  just  nothing  as  to  what  lan- 
guage is  to  be  used  in  either.  There  may  be  in  the 
Bible  more  of  the  language  of  praise  than  there  is  of 
prayer,  while  at  the  same  time  our  own  language  is  to 
be  used  alike  in  both.  But  it  is  exceedingly  doubtful 
whether  there  is  more  of  the  language  of  praise  than 
there  is  of  prayer,  in  the  word  of  God.  And  tor  myself 
I  do  not  believe  that  there  is.  Prayer  does  not  consist 
merely  of  confession  and  petition  ;  but  consists  of  every 
thing  found  in  any  song  of  praise.  Look  for  example 
at  the  90th  Psalm;  which  is  called  A  Prayer/'  and  the 
17th  Psalm,  and  the  *'  Prayer  of  Habakkuk."  We  see 
in  these  what  the  Bible  calls  prayer ;  and  we  see  that 
the  whole  book  of  Psalms  is  full  of  the  very  same  kind 
of  matter  and  language.    So  that  we  have  an  entire 


MORTON  ON  PSALMaDY. 


211 


book  of  Prayers  contained  in  the  word  of  God,  just  as 
well  as  an  entire  book  of  Psalms.  And  there  is  in  reali- 
ty no  more  provision  made  for  us  in  the  one  case  than 
there  is  in  the  other.  Indeed,  the  prayers  and  the 
praises  of  the  Church  have  always  been  considered  as 
one  and  the  same  thing.  In  early  times,  when  men  be- 
gan to  call  upon  the  name  of  the  Lord,  their  prayers 
and  their  praises  were  the  same.  When  they  sung,  it 
was  merely  chaunting  their  prayers.  And  when  singing 
praise  came  to  be  a  stated  part  of  public  worship,  it  was 
still  the  language  of  prayer  accompanied  with  song  and 
mui:ic  of  instruments.  And  so  it  was  among  the  primi- 
tive Christians,  their  prayers  and  songs  of  praise  were 
classed  together  as  devotional  compositions  without  any 
difference.  This  is  stated  distinctly  by  Coleman  in  his 
Ch.  Ant.  "It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  the  earliest 
christian  fathers  make  no  mention  of  Psalms  and  Hymns 
as  a  part  of  religious  worship.  These  were  classed  with 
the  prayers  and  thanksgivings  of  the  Church.  Origen 
is  the  first  author  who  distinctly  mentions  them.  '  We/ 
says  he,  *sing  Hymns  to  God,  who  is  our  all,  and  to  his 
only  begotten  [Son]  tie  word  of  God.'  Eusebius  also 
says  *that  the  Psalms  and  Hymns  of  the  brethren,  writ- 
ten  at  the  beginning  by  the  faithful,  do  set  forth  the 
praises  of  Christ,  the  word  of  God,  and  attribute  divini- 
ty to  him.'  There  is  abundant  evidence  that  they  had 
Psalms  and  Hymns  in  the  primitive  Church,  even  from 
the  beginning;  and  yet  Origen,  a  writer  of  the  third 
century,  is  the  first  who  distinctly  mentions  them,  be- 
cause they  were  esteemed  and  spoken  of  by  the  early 
Christians  as  identical  with  their  prayers  and  thanksgiv- 
ings: all  proving  that  prayer  and  praise  are  virtually 
the  same;  and  that  they  have  always  been  considered  in 
the  Church  as  being  essentially  of  the  same  nature. — 


212  MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 

And  most  obviously  the  Doctor's  whole  reasoning  on  this 
point,  is  founded  in  fallacy,  and  sustained  by  sophistry, 
and  confirmed  with  views  directly  contrary  to  the  word 
of  God.  The  truth  against  which  he  was  contending, 
is  so  perfectly  manifest,  that  all  this  was  necessary,  in 
order  to  have  the  appearance  of  combatting  it  with  suc- 
cess. It  is  so  clearly  taught  in  scripture,  and  so  plain  a  dic- 
tate of  reason,  that  we  may  use  our  own  language  in 
praise  as  well  as  in  prayer,  there  must  be  recourse  to 
all  these  sources  of  help  in  order  to  the  obscuration  of  a 
truth  so  manifest.  Just  in  pr<)portion  to  the  greater 
plainness  of  any  truth,  does  it  require  the  greater  art, 
and  sophistry,  and  management  to  dispose  of  it,  and  to 
neutralize  its  convincing  power  upon  the  mind.  It  is 
hoped,  however,  that  what  has  been  said  will  be  sufficient, 
in  a  measure,  to  remove  the  sophistical  covering,  so  that 
the  honest  inquirer  after  truth  may  be  able  again  to  see 
it,  in  its  own  native  loveliness  and  worth. 

The  Doctor  has  a  chapter  devoted  to  the  history  of 
Psalmody.  And  viewing  it  in  the  light  of  history,  it  is 
truly  a  curiosity.  He  professes  to  give  the  history  of 
Psalmody  in  the  church  down  to  the  fifth  century.  But 
the  fact  of  the  matter  is  plainly  this,  that  instead  of  his- 
tory, it  is  only  a  misrepresentation  of  history.  He  at- 
tempts to  make  history  say  what  it  does  not  say;  and 
not  only,  what  it  does  not  say;  but  the  very  opposite  of 
what  it  does  say.  Because  he  endeavors  to  make  the 
impression,  that  history  affords  no  evidence  of  the  church 
using  any  thing  for  songs  of  praise,  but  the  book  of 
Psalms.  He  culls  out  such  portions  of  history  as  appear 
to  speak  favorably,  or  as  he  thinks  he  can  make  bend  to 
his  own  purpose,  and  these  he  gives  as  the  voice  of  his- 
tory on  this  subject.  But  cautiously  conceals  all  the 
portions  of  history  that  contradict  his  own  views,  or 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


213 


which  he  apprehended  could  not  be  made  to  speak  in  his 
favor.  We  do  not  say  that  his  items  of  history  are  in- 
correct; but  these  items  he  gives  as  the  history  of  Psal- 
mody, to  the  fifth  century,  while  in  reality  they  are  not. 
His  items  may  all  be  true;  but  these  items  do  not  give 
the  voice  of  history  on  this  subject.  They  are  only  a 
part  of  what  history  says,  and  to  them  must  be  added  the 
other  part  before  we  can  have  true  history  in  relation  to 
this  matter.  But  had  he  taken  both  parts,  it  would  have 
defeated  the  end  he  had  in  view,  in  appealing  to  history; 
for  it  would  have  proved,  that  the  church  was  never  con- 
fined to  the  book  of  Psalms,  in  the  worship  of  God,  but 
used  also  the  compositions  of  uninspired  men.  This 
however  he  did  not  want,  and  hence  he  is  compelled  to 
give  some  items  uf  history  as  the  voice  of  history  on  this 
subject.  And  when  a  man  does  this,  can  he  be  relied 
upon  as  a  faithful  historian?  A  historian  professing  to 
give  a  narrative  of  the  battles  of  the  revolutionary  war, 
and  culling  out  all  those  in  which  the  British  were 
successful,  and  leavino^the  others  unnoticed,  would  most 
assuredly  not  be  considered  faithful.  Were  a  farmer  to 
bestow  special  cultivation  on  three  acres  of  his  farm,  and 
these  would  yield  sixty  bushels  of  wheat  to  the  acre, 
while  the  rest  of  the  farm  would  yield  only  twenty,  and 
then  publish,  that  on  his  farm,  he  has  sixty  bushels  to  the 
acre,  would  it  be  the  truth'?  It  would  be  the  truth  res- 
pecting his  three  acres;  but  not  the  truth  respecting  his 
farm;  and  this  retained  as  the  history  of  his  farm  would 
be  a  falsehood.  And  what  Dr.  Pressly  has  done  on  the 
history  of  Psalmody,  is  precisely  like  this.  He  selects 
a  few  items  of  history  which  he  thinks  can  be  made  to 
say  that  the  book  of  Psalms  was  used  in  the  worship  of 
God,  and  gives  these  as  the  history  of  Psalmody;  while 
he  says  not  a  word  of  the  items  of  history  which  state 


214 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


that  the  church  used  also  the  compositions  of  uninspired 
men.    This  will  appear  in  the  sequel. 

It  has  been  seen,  already  how  the  Doctor  endeavors 
to  make  the  New  Testament  speak  in  his  favor.  And 
he  has  yet  another  passage,  which  he  says  proves  that 
"our  Lord  and  his  Apostles  on  the  occasion  of  the  pas- 
sover,  and  Paul  and  Silas  in  prison/'  sung  hymns  from 
the  book  of  Psalms.  In  the  Doctor's  book  there  are 
many  curiosities,  but  I  apprehend  this  one  transcends 
them  all.  The  term  *^k^mned'^  he  says,  is  used  in  three 
different  instances  in  the  New  Testament;  and  one  o^ 
these  is  in  Heb.  3:  12,  ''In  the  midst  of  the  church  I 
will  sing  praise  unto  thee." — ''In  this  latter  instance,"  he 
says,  "we  have  a  quotation  from  the  22nd  Psalm;  so  that 
word  here  evidently  does  refer  to  one  of  the  hymns  con- 
tained in  the  book  of  Psalms;  and  that  it  does  in  the  other 
instances  refered  to,  there  is  no  ground  to  doubt."  P. 
157.  Now  of  all  the  explanations  of  Scripture  the  world 
has  lately  seen,  I  venture  to  say,  this  is  the  most  remark- 
able:— The  words  in  the  22nd  Psalm,  "I  will  sing  praise 
unto  thee,"  refers  to  the  22nd  Psalm! — Just  look  at  it! 
The  words  sing  praise,  refer  to  the  other  word,  ^Hheef^ 
hence,  thee,  must  stand  for  the  22nd  Psalm:  and  the  mean- 
ing is,  "In  the  midst  of  the  church  I  will  sing  praise  un- 
to the  22nd  Psalm!"  This  is  fully  equal  to  the  way  in 
which  the  Papists  translate  Heb.  1  i:  21.  "By  faith  Jacob 
worshipped  the  top  of  his  rod."  To  sing  praise  to  the 
22nd  Psalm  is  surely  very  like  it.  It  is  no  wonder  the 
people  have  such  a  high  regard  for  the  Psalms  of  David, 
when  they  are  taught  by  their  Doctor  that  to  them  they 
ought  to  sing  praise  !  And  if  this  is  not  the  way  in 
which  "  sing  praise^ ^  refers  to  the  22nd  Psalm,  how  is  it  ] 
I  positively  do  not  see  how  else  it  can  be.  It  cannot  be 
because  it  is  a  quotation  from  that  Psalm ;  for  such 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


215 


a  notion  would  not  be  a  whit  less  ridiculous  :  to  say 
that  a  quotation  must  refer  to,  or  speak  of,  that  from 
which  it  is  taken.  Who  would  suppose  that  the  quota- 
tion in  the  next  verse,  "  I  will  put  my  trust  in  him," 
speaks  of  the  16th  Psalm  ?  or  that  he  says  he  will  put 
his  trust  in  the  16th  Psalm?  Or  that,  Behold  I  and  the 
children  which  God  hath  given  me,"  speaks  of  the  8th 
chapter  of  Isaiah  ?  Or,  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  forever 
and  ever,'^  speaks  of  the  45th  Psalm  ?  And  who  would 
suppose  that,  In  the  midst  of  the  church  I  will  sing 
praise  unto  Thee,''  refers  to  speaks  of  the  22nd  Psalm  I 
I  might  venture  to  say,  that  among  all  the  news-boys 
about  Pittsburgh,  none  could  be  found  so  senseless  as  to 
believe  it.  And  does  Dr.  Pressly  believe  it  ?  He  says 
it;  but  does  he  believe  it?  It  would,  indeed,  require  a 
wide  stretch  of  charity  to  suppose  it  resulting  from  such 
a  deficiency  of  common  sense  as  this  would  imjoly. 
And  what  kind  of  beings  must  he  think  he  is  writing  for, 
when  he  can  assume  that  such  inventions  will  pass  with 
them  for  arguments  ?  This  is  another  sample  of  the 
manner  in  which  the  Professor  explains  the  word  of 
God.  And  it  is  a  part  of  his  historical  testimony  show- 
ing that  the  early  christians  used  nothing  but  the  book  of 
Psalms.  He  never  once  refers,  however,  to  the  fact, 
that  the  Christians  at  Corinth  had  Psalms  of  their  own 
composition,  when  they  came  together  for  the  purpose 
of  worshipping  God.  Facts  of  this  kind  do  not  consti- 
tute any  part  of  his  history  of  Psalmody, 

He  then  passes  on  from  the  testimony  of  scripture  and 
says,  **Let  us  inquire  in  so  far  as  we  have  the  light  of 
history  for  our  guide,  what  was  the  practice  of  the 
church  in  the  age  immediately  succedding  the  time  of 
the  Apostles."  Here  we  see  he  professes  to  set  forth 
whatever  the  light  of  history  reveals  upon  this  subject; 


21G 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


and  thus  deceives  his  readers.  For  by  the  light  of  his- 
tory he  guides  them  only  to  such  facts  as  may  lead  them 
to  believe,  that  nothing  but  the  Psalms  of  David  were 
used  in  the  Church;  and  forbears  to  lead  them  by  that 
same  light  to  such  facts  as  teach,  that  other  songs  of 
praise  w^ere  also  used.  His  first  testimony  is  the  letter 
of  Pliny,  Governor  of  Bithyi.ia  and  Pontus  in  Asia  mi- 
ner, to  the  Emperor  Trojan,  written  about  A.  D.  111. 
Pliny  states  in  this  letter,  that  the  Christians  of  Bithynia 
"were  wont  to  meet  together  on  a  stated  day  before  it 
was  light,  and  sing  alternately  a  hymn  to  Christ  as  a 
God."  The  Doctor  will  have  it,  that  this  piece  of  history 
speaks  in  his  favor.  He  says,  "It  will  not  be  denied 
by  any  who  are  acquainted  with  the  book  of  Psalms, 
that  these  sacred  hymns  sjDeak  of  Christ  *  *  *  Christ 
the  Lord  of  glory  is  the  great  subject  of  this  book. 
Then  with  the  strictest  propriety  it  might  be  said,  that 
in  singing  these  Psahns,  the  primitive  christians  celebra- 
ted  the  glory  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  a  divine  per- 
son. *  *  *  *  The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  we 
are  conducted,  is,  that  there  is  nothing  in  this  account  of 
the  worship  of  the  primitive  christians,  which  in  any 
degree  militates  against  the  opinion  that  they  employed 
in  the  worship  of  God  the  songs  of  inspiration;  much  less 
is  there  any  thing  to  prove  that  they  were  accustomed 
to  employ  Hymns  composed  by  uninspired  men."  Thus 
the  Doctor  makes  appear  that  the  primitive  christians 
used  the  book  of  Psalms  to  the  exclusion  of  all  other 
compositions.  But  let  us  compare  with  this  what  the 
celebrated  historian  Neander  says  on  this  subject,  p.  192: 
**  Singing  also  passed  from  the  Jewish  service  into  that 
of  the  Christian  Church.  St.  Paul  exhorts  the  early 
christians  to  sing  spiritual  songs.  What  was  used  for 
this  purpose  were  partly  the  Psalms  of  the  Old  Testa- 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY* 


217 


ment,  and  partly  songs  composed  with  this  very,  ohject: 
especially  songs  of  praise  and  thanks  to  God  and  Christ, 
and  these  we  know  Pliny  found  to  be  customary  among 
the  Christians.  In  the  controversies  with  the  Unitarians, 
about  the  end  of  the  second  century,  and  the  beginning 
of  the  third,  the  hymns  in  which,  from  early  times,  Christ 
had  been  honored  as  a  God,  were  appealed  to."— Now 
this  history  is  very  different  from  that  of  Dr.  Pressly. 
And  if  the  Doctor  is  right  why  did  he  not  state  that 
**Neander's  History"  falsifies  on  this  subject?  It  says, 
the  Psalmody  of  the  primitive  Church  consisted  partly 
of  the  Old  Testament  Psalms;  and  partly  of  songs 
composed  for  the  special  object  of  giving  praise  and 
thanks  to  God  and  Christ,  It  says  also,  that  songs  of  this 
kind,  *'Pliny  found  to  be  customary  among  the  Chris- 
tians," in  the  beginning  of  the  second  century.  It  says, 
also,  *'In  the  controversies  with  Unitarians,  the  hymns  in 
which  from  early  times  Christ  had  been  honored  as  a  God 
w^ere  appealed  to."  Now  why  did  not  Dr.  Pressly  bring 
forward  this  piece  of  history  which  so  flatly  contradicts 
himself,  and  show,  that  it  is  incorrect?  Ah!  no;  he  knew 
it  was  correct,  and  therefore  leaves  it  in  oblivion;  when 
he  tells  his  readers,  that  he  is  guiding  them  "by  the  light 
of  history!" 

Another  authority  brought  forward,  is  that  of  Clem- 
ent of  Alexandria,  a  writer  of  the  second  century.  He 
takes  extracts  from  Clement's  writings,  w4th  which  we 
need  not  burden  our  pages;  and  on  them  makes  these  re- 
marks: This  Christian  Father  seems  to  have  regarded 
the  Psalms  of  David,  as  well  adapted  to  the  expression 
of  that  praise,  which  the  Christian  should  ascribe  to  God; 
and  he  does  not  seem  to  have  felt  the  necessity  for  any 
others  more  suitable  for  that  purposec  2.  He  consid- 
ered, that  in  singing  these  psalms,  the  christian  complies 
19 


218 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


with  the  apostolic  directions  in  Col.  3:  16^17." — Now 
if  Clement's  views  harmonize  so  precisely  with  those  of 
Dr.  Pressley,  how  is  it,  that  he  was  guilty  of  composing 
hymns;  and  of  what  Dr.  Pressly  calls  "offering  strange 
fire  before  the  Lord."  Coleman,  in  his  "Christian  Anti- 
quities,''  says,  "The  most  ancient  hymn  of  the  primitive 
Church  extant,  is  that  of  Clement  of  Alexandria  which 
is  given  below."  It  is  in  the  Greek  Language;  and  in 
a  literal  translation  commences  thus: — 

Bridle  of  unskillful  youth, 

Wing  of  fowls  that  wander  not, 

Helm  sure  of  infancy, 

Shepherd  of  the  royal  lambs, 

Thy  guileless  children  congregate; 

All  piously  to  sing; 

With  mouths  from  evil  free, 

Sincerely  for  to  celebrate 

The  children's  leader,  Christ. 
And  ends  thus: — 

Let  us  all  together  sing — 

Sincerely  let  us  sing  the  Mighty  Child! 

Peaceful  chorus — 

Begotten  of  Christ — 

People  of  prudence. 
Let  us  simultaneously  sing  the  God  of  peace. 
We  see  then,  from  Clement's  own  practice,  that  the 
Doctor  makes  him  hold  views,  which  he  never  held;  and 
say  what  he  never  said.  But  this  is  the  Doctor's  way, 
when  his  authorities  do  not  teach  precisely  what  he 
wants,  he  will  make  them  teach  it. 

Tertullian,  another  writer  of  the  second  century,  is 
his  next  authority.  This  author,  in  speaking  of  the  man- 
ner in  which  public  worship  was  conducted,  says,  "  The 
Scriptures  are  read,  Psalms  are  sung,  and  then  sermons 
are  pronounced."    On  this  the  Doctor  has  the  following  : 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


219 


^*  Though  there  is  no  epithet  here  applied  to  the  term 
Psalms  which  would  enable  us  to  determine  with  abso- 
lute certainty  what  sacred  songs  are  meant ;  yet  as  the 
word  is  used  without  any  qualification,  and  in  connection 
with  the  Scriptures,  there  seems  to  be  no  room  to  doubt 
that  it  is  employed  in  the  usual  acceptation,  as  refering 
to  the  songs  of  inspiration.''  Here  too,  he  has  Tertul- 
lian  saying  just  what  he  wants.  But  hov/  ?  Because 
Tertullian  says,  *'  The  Scriptures  are  read,  and  Psalms 
are  sung,  and  sermons  are  pronounced,"  and  Fsalms 
being  mentioned  in  connection  with  the  Scriptures,  the 
Psalms  of  David  must  be  meant !  And  according  to  the 
Doctor's  logic,  inasmuch  as  the  sermons  w^ere  human 
composition,  and  the  Scriptures  mentioned  in  connec- 
tion with  them,  these  Scriptures  must  have  been  human 
composition  !  Is  not  the  Doctor  a  very  profound  logi- 
cian? And  the  Doctor's  logic  too,  makes  Tertullian  say 
what  he  never  designed  to  say  ;  because  it  makes  him 
say  that  the  christians  used  nothing  in  their  worship  but 
the  Psalms  of  David ;  but  this  is  directly  contrary  to  Ter- 
tuUian's  own  statement.  Col.  Ch.  Ant.  p.  327,  **The  fol- 
lowing description  of  christian  intercourse  is  also  from 
Tertullian,  Apol.  39:  They  sit  not  down  at  table  till  pray- 
ers have  been  offered  to  God."  *  *  *  *  ''After  their 
hands  are  washed  and  lights  are  brought  in,  each  one  is 
invited  to  sing  something  before  the  company  to  the 
praise  of  God,  whether  it  be  borrowed  from  the  Holy 
Scripture,  or  as  his  own  heart  may  dictate  to  him." 
How  very  unmanageable  Tertullian  is,  when  he  will 
just  say  the  contrary  of  what  the  Doctor  wants  him  ! 
And  when  he  has  the  assurance  to  say  that  the  Doctor 
is  endeavoring  to  make  him  give  a  false  representation 
of  what  was  the  practice  in  the  Primitive  Church, 
A.  D.  3G5,  a  Council  was  held  at  Antioch  in  which 


220 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Paul  of  Samosata,  Bishop  of  Antiocli,  was  deposed  for 
denying  the  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  That 
part  of  the  charges  brought  against  him,  which  has  a 
bearing  upon  the  subject  of  Psalmody  is  given  in  the 
following  translation  of  Doctor  Pressly  : — Paul  put  a 
Btop  to  the  Psalms  in  honor  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as 
though  (they  had  been)  modern,  and  the  compositions  of 
modern  men,  and  prepared  women  on  the  great  day  of 
Easter,  in  the  midst  of  the  Church,  to  sing  praises  in 
honor  of  himself,"  Now,  from  this  piece  of  history  it 
is  perfectly  manifest  that  the  church  had  been  in  the 
practice  of  using  Psalms  different  from  any  found  in  the 
Psalms  of  David.  Paul  put  a  stop  to  the  Psalms  that 
were  in  use,  because  they  spoke  of  Jesus  Christ  as  a 
divine  person.  But  it  is  well  known  that  Arians  and 
Socinians,  indeed,  all  Unitarians,  can  cheerfully  read 
and  sing  the  Psalms  of  David,  and  still  deny  the  divinity 
of  Christ ;  because  they  maintain  that  this  doctrine 
is  not  taught  in  the  Psalms;  just  as  they  maintain  that 
it  is  not  taught  any  where  in  the  word  of  God.  It  could 
not  be  the  Psalms  of  David,  then,  which  Paul  put  a  stop 
to,  on  account  of  their  being  in  honor  of  Jesus  Christ. 
For  Paul,  like  other  Unitarians,  denied  that  these 
Psalms  gave  any  honor  to  Christ  as  a  divine  person ;  and 
hence,  he  could  have  no  objection  to  their  use  on  this 
account.  But  he  stopped  the  use  of  the  Psalms  because 
they  were  in  honor  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  hence 
they  must  have  had  language  something  like  this  ; 

^'Ye  saints  proclaim  abroad 

The  honours  of  your  King; 
To  Jesus  your  incarnate  God, 

Your  songs  of  praises  sing/'* 

And  history  informs  us,  that  this  kind  of  songs  and 
psalms  were  composed  by  christians  in  honor  of  Jesus 


Morton  on  psalmody.  221 

Christ,  even  from  the  beginning.  The  language  in  Euse- 
bins  the  celebrated  historian  of  the  fourth  century,  is;— 
**To  be  short,  how  many  psalms,  and  hymns  and  canticles, 
were  written  from  the  beginning  by  the  faithful;  which 
do  celebrate  and  praise  Christ  the  word  of  God,  for  no 
other  than  God  indeed/' — -Now  this  explains  to  us  very 
clearly  what  psalms  they  were,  which  Paul  put  a  stop 
to — psalms  composed  by  faithful  christians  from  the 
beginning,  in  honor  of  Jesus  Christ,  speaking  of  him  as 
no  other  than  God  indeed.  And  Eusebius  gives  this  as 
the  language  of  a  writer  in  the  second  century,  "That 
from  the  beginning,  psalms  and  hymns  and  canticles^ 
were  composed  by  the  faithful  Christians,  in  honor  of 
Jesus  Christ.''  And  though  these  psalms  had  been 
common  in  the  church  for  the  greater  part  of  three  hun- 
dred years,  yet  Paul  took  as  much  liberty  with  them  as 
though  they  had  been  mere  novelties — as  though  they 
had  been  modern  and  the  compositions  of  modern  men. 
"And  the  implied  idea  is,  that  the  psalms  which  had 
been  sung  in  that  church,  were  not  modern,  nor  the 
compositions  of  modern  men;  but  were  the  songs," 
which  had  been  used  in  the  church  for  centuries — which 
had  been  composed  by  faithfnl  christians  from  the  begin- 
ii:g;  and  the  use  of  which  had  long  been  established  by 
the  universal  practice  of  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ. 
"And  the  daring  impiety  of  Paul  appeared  in  this,  that 
he  treated  the  divine  songs,  which  celebrate  the  praises 
of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  though  they  had  been  the  compo- 
sitions of  men  of  his  own  times — recent  productions; 
just  as  though  their  use  had  not  been  fully  established 
by  the  universal  suffrage  of  the  church  for  ages.  The 
whole  weight  of  the  church's  authority  for  many  genera- 
tions had  sanctioned  the  use  of  these  Psalms,  composed 
in  honor  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  now  Paul  con- 
19* 


222 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


temptously  tramples  upon  the  authority  of  the  church  in 
casting  out  the  Psalms  which  she  had  established;  and  in 
treating  them  as  though  they  had  no  authority — just  as 
though  they  were  modern — mere  novelties — and  the 
compositions  of  modern  men — men  who  had  no  estab- 
lished reputation  in  the  Church  of  God.  If  a  Presbyte- 
rian minister  should  be  settled  in  a  congregation  where 
the  Psalms  and  Hymns  of  the  Presbyterian  church  had 
been  used  for  ages,  and  would  put  a  stop  to  these,  be- 
cause they  were  in  honor  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
charges  brought  against  him  might  be  in  the  same  words 
as  those  brought  against  Paul;  ''That  he  had  put  a  stop 
to  the  Psalms  in  honor  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  as 
though  they  had  been  modern,  and  the  compositions  of 
modern  men."  He  might  be  charged  not  only  with  put- 
ting a  stop  to  these  Psalms,  but  also  with  the  daring  im- 
piety of  treating  these  "divine  songs,  which  celebrate  the 
praises  of  the  Lord  Jesus,  as  though  they  had  been"  mere 
novelties,  of  a  modern  description;  and  the  compositions 
of  modern  men.  Whereas  the  psalms  and  hymns  had 
not  been  new  things  in  the  church;  but  had  been  estab- 
lished in  the  church  for  many  generations.  It  is  per- 
fectly plain,  that  this  portion  of  history,  even  when  Dr. 
Pressly  has  manufactured  a  translation  to  suit  himself, 
still  concurs  with  other  passages,  which  teach  that  the 
primitive  church  used  the  compositions  of  uninspired 
men. 

But  it  may  well  be  questioned,  whether  Dr.  Pressly's 
translation  is  correct;  because  many  historians  agree  in 
translating  the  passage  differently.  And  the  object  they 
had  in  view,  was  to  give  the  meaning  of  the  original;  but 
the  Doctor's  object  was  to  have  a  translation  to  suit  his 
own  purpose*  I  may  mention  at  least  four  who  all  have 
the  same  translation;  and  all  different  from  Dr.  Pressly: 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


223 


Hanmer,  Milnor,  Cruse  and  Neander.  These  histo- 
rians consider  Paul  as  calling  the  church  psalms,  then  in 
use  modern  compositions,  when  compared  with  the 
Psalms  of  David.  For  though  these  psalms,  composed 
by  Christians  from  the  beginning,  had  long  been  in  use  in 
the  church,  and  were  no  novelties,  yet,  compared  with 
David^s  Psalms,  they  were  quite  modern.  And  because 
they  had  not  the  antiquity  of  David's  Psalms,  Paul  made 
this  the  pretended  ground  of  having  them  banished  from 
the  church,  while  the  true  cause  was,  that  they  taught 
the  divinity  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  The  following 
extract  from  Neander's  History  explains  a  great  deal 
connected  with  Paul's  conduct  in  this  affair. 

"At  Antioch  it  seems  the  profane  custom  of  testifying 
approbation  to  preachers,  by  waving  of  handkerchiefs, 
exclamations,  and  clapping  of  the  hands,  which  sets 
preachers  in  the  same  class  with  actors  and  declaimers 
for  effect,  had  already  passed  into  the  church  from  the 
theatre,  and  from  the  exhibition  schools  of  the  rhetorici- 
ans. The  vain  Paul  saw  this  with  pleasure;  but  the  bishops 
who  were  his  accusdrs,  were  well  aware  that  this  custom 
was  contrary  to  the  dignity  and  order  which  ought  to 
prevail  in  the  house  of  God.  The  church  hymns  which 
had  been  in  use  since  the  second  century,  he  banished 
as  an  inovation  apparently  proceeding  on  the  principle, 
which  has  been  set  up  by  others  in  later  times,  that  only 
passages  out  of  the  Holy  Scripture  ought  to  be  sung  in 
the  church:  and  thus  he  probably  suffered  nothing  but 
Psalms  to  be  used.  There  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  the 
suspicion,  that  Paul  did  this  in  order  to  pay  court  to  hig 
patroness  Zenobia,  as  being  a  Jewess.  It  is  more  pro- 
bable that  Paul,  who  might  be  well  aware  how  deeply 
the  import  of  church  hymns  impress  itself  upon  the  heart, 
when  he  banished  those  old  hymns,  (which  spoke  of 


S24 


Morton  on  psalmody. 


Christ  as  the  incarnate  Logos,)  tniglit  hope  also  to  banish 
the  doctrines  they  contained  from  the  hearts  of  men. 
When  we  find  it  stated,  that  the  man  who  thus  care- 
fully removed  the  expressions  used  to  designate  Christ, 
was  delighted  to  receive  the  incense  of  exaggerated  ex- 
pressions about  himself,  in  poems  and  declamations  in 
holy  places,  and  to  be  called  in  bombastic  rhetorical 
phrases  an  angel  sent  down  from  heaven,  we  cannot  con- 
sent to  receive  such  an  accusation  from  the  mouth  of  vio- 
lent enemies,  as  one  on  which  we  can  entirely  depend; 
but  we  have  no  reason  whatever,  for  declaring  it  to  be 
false/' 

It  is  seen  here  that  Neander's  opinion  is,  that  Paul 
called  these  Psalms  modern,  compared  with  the  Psalms 
of  David,  and  under  this  pretext  had  them  banished 
from  the  church;  and  this  has  been  the  current  opin- 
ion of  historians  down  to  the  time  of  Dr.  Pressly,  who 
will  have  it,  that  Paul  banished  the  Psalms  of  David,  as 
though  they  had  been  modern;  that  is,  he  paid  no  more 
respect  to  the  Psalms  of  inspiration,  than  is  due  to  the 
modern  compositions  of  uninspired  men.  He  says,  *'In 
support  of  this  interpretation  of  the  Epistle  of  the  Council, 
which  condemned  the  heresy  of  Paul,  the  following  con- 
siderations are  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  the  unpre- 
judiced reader."  The  Doctor  often  appeals  to  the  %in- 
jprejudiced;  these  of  course  are  Psalmonites,  for  all 
others  he  believes  are  prejudiced  against  his  views.  But 
the  Doctor  is  free  from  all  prejudice;  and  all  Psalmon- 
ites are  just  like  him:  they  are  all  so  perfectly  free  from 
prejudice  in  this  matter,  that  it  is  remarkable!  If  others 
were  as  free  from  prejudice  as  they  are,  how  clearly 
they  could  see  the  force  of  the  Doctor's  argument;  and 
here  it  is: — '*The  sacred  songs  which  the  church  in  An- 
tioch  had  been  accustomed  to  sing,  and  the  use  of  whidi 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


225 


Paul  of  Samosata  is  said  to  have  abolished  are  termed 
Psalms  *  ^  *  Now  while  I  freely  admit,  that  this  term 
does  not  conclusively  establish  the  fact,  that  these  sacred 
songs  w^ere  the  Psalms  of  David,  yet  it  furnishes  a  strong 
presumptive  argument  in  favor  of  this  supposition.  It 
will,  I  suppose,  be  admitted  by  all  who  are  concerned 
in  this  controversy  that  this  term  is  more  commonly  used 
to  designate  the  Psalms  of  inspiration,  and  that  it  is  not 
the  term  usually  employed  in  reference  to  the  com- 
positions of  uninspired  men." — He  takes  it  for  granted; 
that  what  is  now  customary  in  Allegheny,  in  his  congre- 
gation, was  just  what  was  customary  in  Antioch  in  the 
thii'd  century!  What  an  effulgence  of  both  wisdom  and 
knowledge  ,  beams  forth  through  all  his  reasoning!  And 
then  look! — He  proves  it  was  the  Psalms  of  David  which 
Paul  banished  from  the  church,  just  because  they  are 
called  psalms!  And  thus  too,  the  Doctor  proves,  that  the 
psalms  sung  by  the  women  in  honor  of  Paul  himself  were 
the  psalms  of  David;  for  thsy  also  are  called  psalms^ 
And  thus  according  to  the  Doctor's  logic,  Paul  put  a  stop 
to  the  Psalms  of  David,  and  prepared  women  in  the 
midst  of  the  church,  to  sing  the  psalms  of  David  in  ho^ 
nor  of  himself!  Would  it  not  be  well  for  the  Doctor  to 
open  a  school  for  the  specific  end  of  teaching  logic?  It 
would  surely  attain  to  great  celebrity!  But  then,  of 
course,  not  being  among  the  unprejudiced  I  am  unable 
to  see  the  force  of  his  logic.  It  is  the  unprejudiced  few 
who  can  see  it  in  all  its  beauty!  It  is  worthy  of  remark 
here,  that  in  the  account  of  the  occurrence  at  Antioch, 
there  is  the  same  evidence,  that  the  women  sung  the 
Psalms  of  David  in  praise  of  Paul;  as  there  is,  that  the 
apostle  James  meant  the  Psalnis  of  David,  when  he  said, 
"Is  any  merry]  Let  him  sing  psalms."  Because  the 
verbs  psalmodein  and  psalleto  are  from  th^  same  root  in 


226 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


Greek,  and  have  the  same  signification.  But  the  "Doctor 
will  have  it,  that  wherever  the  the  term  psalms  is  found 
it  must  mean  the  Psalms  of  David;  and  he  appeals  to  all 
if  this  is  not  the  common  acceptation  of  the  term; 
that  it  designates  the  Psalms  of  inspiration.  But  this 
argument  he  knows  will  have  weight  with  the  unpreju- 
diced; because  by  psalms  thev  always  mean  the  Psalms 
of  David.  And  hence  they  think  it  must  have,  and  al- 
ways had,  no  other  meaning.  And  according  to  their 
views  Presbyterians  sing  the  Psalms  of  inspiration:  and 
the  women  of  Antioch,  praising  Paul,  sung  the  Psalms 
of  inspiration:  and  the  Pagan  Greeks  sung  the  psalms  of 
inspiration,  hundreds  of  years  before  they  knew  there 
were  any  such  Psalms!  But  it  is  only  the  unprejudiced 
who  make  these  discoveries.  And  the  Doctor  has  re- 
course to  this  argument  frequently,  though  it  may  not 
be  expressed  just  as  it  is  here.  Whenever  the  term 
psalms  is  found  it  must  designate  the  Psalms  of  David, 
for  that  is  the  usual  signification  of  the  term  now,  at  least 
among  the  Psalmonites.  And  in  this  country,  the  term 
corn,  is  commonly  used  to  designate  Indian  corn.  So 
then  by  the  Doctor's  reasoning  wherever  the  term  corn 
occurs  in  the  Bible  it  must  always  mean  Indian  corn: 
and  in  the  writings  of  Europeans  it  must  mean  Indian 
corn:  and  the  corn-laws  of  England  must  mean  laws  res- 
pecting Indian  corn!  This  oft  repeated  argument,  is 
manifestly  intended  for  the  unprejudiced  few,  because  it 
is  only  a  class  of  people  possessing  a  certain  amount  of 
information,  who  would  at  all  be  capable  of  feeling  the 
force  of  it.  But  what  else  can  we  esteem  it,  than  most 
consummate  trifling,  when  we  see  a  man  attempting  to 
build  arguments  upon  the  meaning  of  a  term,  which  has 
always  been  used  to  designate  such  9-  variety  of  compo- 
sition? 


MORTOM  ON  PSALMODY. 


227 


But  he  has  another  argument  to  prove  that  it  was  the 
Plsams  of  David  w^hich  Paul  banished — "But  that  the 
psalms;  the  use  of  which  Paul  abolished,  were  not  the 
compositions  of  modern  men,  and  could  not  be  set  aside 
by  him  under  the  pretext  that  they  were  modern,  will 
appear  from  this  consideration :  That  which  he  is  said 
to  have  introduced  would  be  equally,  if  not  in  a  greater 
degree,  obnoxious  to  the  same  objection.  The  psalms 
which  he  removed  were  such  as  were  in  honor  of  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ;  those  which  he  appointed  to  be 
sung  in  their  stead  were  in  honor  of  himself.  Now  it  is 
certain  that  none  of  the  Psalms  of  David  would  be 
adapted  to  the  purpose  of  celebrating  the  praises  of 
Paul  of  Samosata."  The  psalms  sung  in  honor  of  Paul, 
he  says,  could  not  be  the  Psalms  of  David ;  and  yet  they 
are  called  Psahns  !  Thus  at  once  he  refutes  his  own  ar- 
gument, which  he  had  confidently  built  upon  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  psalm.  The  word  psalm  proved  every 
thing  with  him  before  ;  but  now  it  proves  nothing  ! 
Who  could  help  laughing  '?  He  shows,  indeed,  how  per- 
fectly ridiculous  it  is  for  him  to  be  founding  arguments 
upon  the  word  psalm.  But  he  says  Paul  could  not 
have  banished  the  psalms  under  the  pretext  that  they 
were  modern;  for  those  which  he  appointed  to  be  sung 
in  their  stead  were  obnoxious  to  the  same  objection  ; 
they  must  be  even  more  modern.  But  here  the  Doctor 
entirely  misrepresents  the  matter ;  because  it  is  not  said 
that  Paul  introduced  any  psalms  in  the  stead  of  those  he 
banished.  It  is  said  that  on  one  occasion,  "  the  great 
day  of  Easter,"  he  had  women  prepared  to  sing  psalms 
in  honor  of  himself;  but  this  singing  was  not  in  the  stead 
of  that  which  he  abolished  ;  it  was  a  different  thing  from 
the  singing  at  the  time  of  public  worship  in  the  church. 
Can  the  Doctor  really  believe  that  after  the  psalms  were 


228 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


banished  there  was  then  no  singing  in  the  church,  but 
that  of  the  women  praising  Paul  1  Who  but  himself 
could  have  ever  thought  of  such  an  absurdity  ?  And  this  is 
what  he  wants  his  unprejudiced  readers  to  believe,  that 
when  Paul  banished  the  psalms  he  allowed  nothing  to 
be  sung  then  in  public  worship,  but  his  own  praises! 
The  Doctor  must  think  that  his  readers  are  not  only  un- 
prejudiced ;  but  that  they  have  a  ready  disposition  for 
the  reception  of  the  marvellous.  And  yet  his  principal 
argument  is  founded  upon  this  misrepresentation.  But 
it  is  no  part  of  the  charges  against  Paul,  that  he  had 
introduced  any  thing  in  the  flace  of  the  psalms  he  sup- 
pressed. The  two  charges  specified  are — his  miscon- 
duct in  suppressing  the  psalms — and  his  misconduct  on 
the  great  day  of  Easter.  The  Council  did  not  blame 
Paul  on  account  of  the  psalms  he  was  still  using  in  the 
worship  of  God ;  but  on  account  of  preparing  women 
to  praise  himself  at  the  Easter  festival;  and  on  account 
of  banishing  the  psalms  which  were  in  honor  of  the  Lord 
Jesus  Christ.  And  it  is  probable  that  Paul  introduced  no 
psalms  in  place  of  those  he  banished;  but  confined  the 
church  to  the  use  of  only  a  part  of  what  had  hitherto  con- 
stituted her  Psalmody.  The  Psalmody  of  the  church  may 
have  consisted  of  "  the  psalms  and  hymns  and  canticles 
wrtiten  from  the  beginning,  by  the  christians  in  praise  of 
Jesus  Christ,  and  also  of  the  Psalms  of  David;  the 
former  then  Paul  stopped,  and  allowed  the  continued 
use  of  David's  Psalms  alone.  And  hence  there  is  no 
charge  against  Paul  for  the  psalms  he  still  used  in  public 
worship ;  but  only  on  account  of  what  he  had  banished. 
The  church  has  always  allowed  the  use  of  David's 
Psalms ;  but  she  does  not  allow  the  banishment  of  all 
others. 

This  piece  of  history  in  relation  to  Paul  of  Somosata, 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY.  229 

is  very  conclusive  in  proof  of  the  primitive  church  using 
the  compositions  of  uninspired  men.  This  is  more  obvi- 
ous when  the  Greek  is  translated  according  as  it  has 
always  been  understood  by  distinguished  scholars  and 
historians  ;  and  the  reading  is  this  : — "  The  Psalms  in 
honor  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  he  stopped,  inasmuch 
as  they  were  modern,  and  the  compositions  of  modern 
men  ;  and  prepared  women  to  sing  Psalms  in  honor  of 
himself,  in  the  midst  of  the  Church  on  the  great  day  of 
Easter."  He  stopped  the  Psalms  in  honor  of  Christ, 
in  tliat  they  were  modern,  or,  inasmuch  as,  they  were 
modern.  And  the  meaning  is^  because  they  were  mod- 
ern. Every  scholar  knows  that  the  proper  translation 
of  OS  dee  is,  in  that,  or  inasmuch  as,  and  that  they  assign 
the  reason  why  something  is  done  ;  and  that  these  two 
Greek  particles  together,  are  never  used  to  convey  the 
idea  of  comparison  or  similitude.  And  hence  they  can- 
not properly  be  rendered  "  as  though,"  which  Dr.  Pressly 
has  invented  to  suit  his  purpose.  It  does  really  appear 
to  me,  that  by  a  great  show  of  learning  he  has  attempted 
to  practise  deception  upon  his  unprejudiced  readers. 
Because  he  tries  to  make  them  believe  that  the  Greek, 
in  the  Extract  from  Eusebius,  is  the  same  as  the  Greek 
to  which  he  refers  in  the  New  Testament ;  but  this  is 
not  the  case.  He  brings  several  passages  from  the  New 
Testament  to  show  that  his  translation  of  the  Extract  is 
correct;  but  in  not  one  of  these  passages  is  the  Greek 
ihe  same  as  it  is  in  the  Extract :  hence  these  passages  in 
the  New  Testament  prove  nothing  as  to  how  the  Greek 
of  the  Extract  ought  to  be  translated.  The  Greek  in 
'*Acts  22,  30,"  is  not  the  same  as  the  Greek  in  the  Extract; 
and  the  translation  of  the  one  proves  nothing  as  to  how 
the  other  may  be  translated.  In  Act.  it  is  os,  and  prop- 
erly translated  ^^o.s  though;'^  but  in  the  Extract  it  is 
20 


230 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


dee^  and  according  to  the  best  authorities  cannot  be  trans- 
lated ^^as  though,''^  but  ought  to  be  translated  in  that,  or 
inasmuch  as.  The  Doctor  appeals  to  the  authority  of  "the 
learned  Valesius;'*  and  says  that  he  translates  with 
^^quasij^  intimating  that  quasi  has  no  other  meaning  than 
i^as  ihough^^  or  as  if.  But  every  scholar  knows  that  this 
word  often  me  ans  as,  just  as,  or  inasmuch  as.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  hardly  fair  treatment  for  his  un- 
prejudiced readers  to  make  any  kind  of  attempt  to  mis- 
lead them,  where  they  are  incapable  of  examining  for 
themselves.  But  perhaps  the  unprejudiced  will  take  it 
for  granted  that  it  is  all  correct.  And  no  doubt  some 
will  maintain  that  it  must  be  so,  just  because  the  Doctor 
says  it;  and  then,  that  decides  the  matter.  I  think,  how- 
ever, it  would  have  subserved  his  cause  more  if  he  had 
passed  over  this  piece  of  history  in  silence,  just  as  he 
has  others  which  tell  us  the  same  truth;  namefy,  that  the 
primitive  church  used  songs  of  praise  composed  by  un- 
inspired men.  But  the  Doctor  supposed  he  could  make 
this  passage  speak  in  his  favor,  and  hence  he  made  the 
effort;  but  it  has  proved  to  be  a  most  remarkable  fail- 
ure. And  indeed,  his  whole  labor  on  the  history  of 
Psalmody  is  nothing  but  a  failure;  for  in  all  his  authori- 
ties he  cannot  find  a  single  intimation  that  the  church,  or 
people  of  God,  were  ever  confined  to  the  use  of  David's 
Psalms  in  their  songs  of  praise.  And  we  have  seen,  on 
the  contrary,  that  the  full  and  explicit  testimony  of  history 
is,  that  the  primitive  church  was  in  the  regular  practice 
of  using  psalms  and  hymns  and  canticles,  or  spiritual 
songs,  composed  by  uninspired  men.  And  Coleman  in 
his  "Christian  Antiquities''  has  given  us  another  of  these 
hymns  composed  by  Ambrose,  Bishop  of  Milan,  a  writer 
of  the  fourth  century.  The  following  are  some  verses 
of  this  hymn,  in  Bishop  Mant's  version  : 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


231 


"Lord,  who  didst  bless  thy  chosen  band, 

And  forth  commissioned  send. 
To  spread  thy  name  from  land  to  land, 

To  Thee  our  hymns  ascend. 
In  them  the  heavens  exulting  own 

The  Father's  might  revealed, 
Thy  triumph  gained  begotten  Son, 

Thy  Spirit's  influence  sealed. 
Then  to  thy  Father,  and  to  Thee, 

And  to  thy  Spirit  blest, 
Ail  praise  for  these  thy  servants  be 
By  all  the  church  addrest/' 
But,  to  facts  and  evidences  of  this  kind  Dr.  Pressly 
never  once  refers,  while  he  professes  to  give  the  history 
of  Psalmody  dovv^n  to  the  fifth  century.  And  in  the 
history  of  Psalmody  it  is  not  necessary  to  follow  him 
any  further;  for  though  he  appeals  to  the  early  fathers, 
yet  there  is  not  one  of  them  will  say  what  he  desires: 
not  one  of  them  will  even  intimate  that  the  primitive 
church  used  the  Psalms  of  David  exclusively  in  the  wor- 
ship of  God,  By  these  authorities  he  can  show  that 
some  of  these  psalms  were  used  on  some  occasions;  but 
who  wishes  to  deny  this?  He  can  show  too,  that  these 
early  fathers  understood  the  book  of  Psalms  as  speak- 
ing frequently  of  the  Redeemer;  and  who  wants  to  deny 
this  respecting  the  book  of  Psalms'?  He  can  prove  also, 
that  the  early  fathers  esteemed  the  book  of  Psalms  as  a 
very  excellent  portion  of  the  word  of  God;  and  in  his 
catalogue  of  authors  he  might  have  included  Dr.  Watts 
and  Dr.  Ralston;  for  all  good  men,  in  all  ages,  have 
esteemed  the  book  of  Psalms  as  a  valuable  and  very- 
precious  portion  of  the  word  of  God. 

It  is  not  the  intention  to  dwell  on  the  history  of 
Psalmody.  But  were  we  to  do  so,  it  would  fully  appear 
that  the  Church  of  Christ  has  never  used  the  Psalms  of 


232 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


David  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others;  and  that  she  has 
always  held  the  principle  and  practised  upon  it,  that  it 
is  proper  to  use  in  the  worship  of  God  songs  of  praise 
composed  by  uninspired  men.  ^'Milnor's  Church  His- 
tory" affords  much  testimony  to  this  effect.  And  many 
pages  might  be  filled  showing  that  the  martyrs  of  Jesus, 
when  brought  to  seal  their  testimony  with  their  blood, 
even  on  the  scaffold  and  at  the  stake,  praised  the  Lord 
in  songs  composed  by  uninspired  men,  The  Waldenses, 
who  long  and  faithfully  contended  against  the  corrup- 
tions of  Popery,  used  in  the  worship  of  God  songs  of 
praise  of  this  description.  John  Huss  and  Jerome  of 
Prague,  who  suffered  martyrdom  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
<iid  the  same.  In  speaking  of  Jerome,  the  historian 
says: — "As  he  went  to  execution  he  sung  the  Apostles 
creed  and  the  hymns  of  the  church,  with  a  loud  voice  and 
a  cheerful  countenance.  He  kneeled  at  the  stake  and 
prayed.  Being  then  bound  he  raised  his  voice  and  sung 
a  paschal  hymn,  then  much  in  vogue  in  the  church — 
Hail!  happy  day  and  ever  be  adored, 
When  hell  was  conquered  by  great  lieaven^s  Lord/^ 
And  after  the  glorious  Reformation  burst  upon  a  be- 
nighted w^orld,  the  people  of  God  practised  in  the  same 
manner.  Luther,  who  was  raised  up  to  be  so  eminently 
instrumental  in  shakuig  Babylon  to  her  foundations,  and 
in  bringing  out  from  her  the  Lord's  own  people,  both 
composed  and  sung  hymns  of  praise  to  God.  The  his- 
torian says,  "A  short  time  before  Luther  ventured  to  ad" 
minister  the  Lord's  Supper  in  the  German  language,  he 
had  the  precaution  to  compose  and  print  a  very  useful 
little  book,  containing  thirty-eight  German  hymns,  with 
their  appropriate  tunes,  for  the  express  purpose  of  con- 
veying and  fixing  in  the  memories  of  the  common  peo- 
ple a  deal  of  religious  instruction  in  a  very  concise  and 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


233 


agreeable  manner/'  And  so  has  it  been  in  relation  to 
the  venerable  church  of  Scotland.  She  has  never  held 
the  principle,  that  the  book  of  Psalms,  ought  to  be  used 
in  the  worship  of  God  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others. 
The  following  extract  is  sufficient.  **At  the  very  same 
time  that  Rouse's  version  Was  preparing,  for  the  use  of 
the  Scotch  churches,  Mr.  Zachary  Boyd's  Scripture  Songs 
engaged  the  attention  of  the  Assembly.  An  act  for  the 
examination  of  them  was  passed  by  the  General  Assem- 
bly, in  the  year  1648,  which  was  just  the  year  before 
Rouse's  version  of  the  Psalms  of  David  was  prepared. 
In  the  year  1706,  the  Assembly  recommended,  that  (he 
Scripture  songs  by  Mr.  P.  Sympson,  minister  of  Renfrew, 
should  be  used  in  private  families.  The  recommenda- 
tion was  repeated  in  1707,  and  in  1708  the  commission 
of  the  Assembly  were  instructed  and  appointed  to  con- 
sider the  printed  version  of  the  Scripture  Songs,  with 
the  remarks  of  Presbyteries  thereupon;  and  after  ex- 
amination thereof,  to  conclude  and  emit  the  same;  they 
were  authorised  for' the  use  of  the  church."  It  is  per- 
fectly manifest,  that  the  church  of  Scotland  has  never 
held  the  principle,  that  David's  Psalms  are  to  be  used 
exclusively  in  the  worship  of  God.  The  opinion,  indeed, 
has  no  foundation,  either  in  Scripture,  in  reason,  or  in 
the  universal  practice  of  the  Christisn  Church. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


The  Cause — The  Occasion— And  the  Support  of  Psalmonism, 

The  principal  arguments  in  support  of  Psal monism 
have  been  briefly  examined;  and  every  candid  and  im- 
partial reader  v^ill  see,  that  they  are  utterly  without 
foundation.  The  word  of  God  affords  to  them  no  sup- 
port whatever.  And  we  have  seen  from  the  light  of  his- 
tory, that  the  Church  of  God  never  held,  or  practised  on 
such  a  principle.  And  the  dictates  of  reason  and  com- 
mon-sense accord  precisely  with  the  teachings  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  the  practice  of  the  Church  in  relation  to  this 
matter.  Indeed  there  are  but  few  notions  entertained  so 
entirely  destitute  of  support.  And  hence  it  may  be 
considered  almost  unaccountable,  that  men  have  enter- 
tained views  so  entirely  indefensible  except  by  sophistry 
and  misrepresentation.  But  who  does  not  know,  that 
many  wild  and  indefensible  notions  have  been  origina- 
ted and  set  forth  by  the  erring  children  of  men?  The 
cause,  no  doubt,  is  found  in  the  deranged  state  of  the 
human  mind,  resulting  from  sin's  influence  on  the  facul- 
ties of  the  soul.  Under  the  deleterious  influence  of 
moral  evil,  man's  mind  is  prone  to  wander  and  run  into 
folly — its  aberations  have  been  innijmerable — its  vaga- 
ries wild  and  extravagant.  And  even  good  men  in  this 
life,  are  not  entirely  free  from  this  pernicious  influence 
of  sin — in  their  minds  there  is  the  same  erratic  tendency: 
the  extravagance  of  which  is  prevented,  only  by  the  en-^ 
lightening  and  sanctifying  influence  of  divine  grace. 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


235 


And  then,  the  disordered  state  of  the  human  mind  be- 
ing the  cause,  it  is  not  difficult  to  point  out  the  occasion 
which  led  this  erring  mind  to  entertain  Psalmonistic 
views.  But  when  we  inquire  after  the  origin  of  Psal- 
onism,  we  must  direct  our  attention  to  'practice  instead 
of  to  principle.  Because  the  principles  of  Psalmonites 
have  grown  out  of  their  practice,  instead  of  their  prac- 
tice being  founded  in  principle.  Their  exclusive 
use  of  what  they  call  David's  Psalms,  has  led  them  to  be- 
lieve, that  nothing  else  should  be  used.  And  this  is  the 
process, — When  Rouse's  paraphrase  came  into  general 
use  in  the  churches,  it  was  soon  found  that  the  people 
could  not  "sing  with  the  spirit  and  with  the  understanding 
also"  unless  the  Psalm  was  previously  explained.  Then 
from  the  practice  of  explaining  the  Psalm  arose  tlie 
opinion,  that  these  Psalms  were  inspired;  because  it 
was  understood,  that  no  writings  were  to  be  expounded 
in  public  worship  but  the  word  of  God.  And  the  ex- 
planation itself  had  a  tendency  to  make  the  impression, 
that  Rouse's  paraphrase  was  the  Psalms  of  inspiration. 
And  then,  the  people  being  long  accustomed  to  sing 
what  they  understood  to  be  the  Psalms  of  inspiration, 
the  impression  gradually  took  possession  of  their  minds, 
that  these  alone  ought  to  be  used.  And  thus,  their  prac- 
tice imperceptibly  leading  them  to  entertain  these  views, 
they  began  to  invent  arguments,  and  to  seek  for  princi- 
ples whereby  they  might  be  sustained.  And  hence  we  see 
how  it  is,  that  the  practice  comes  first  and  then  the  prin- 
ciples follow  after.  The  principles  have  to  be  manufac- 
tured to  suit  the  practice,  and  therefore  they  have  no 
foundation  in  Scripture,  nor  reason,  nor  in  the  usage  of 
the  Church  of  God. 

For  Psalmonism  then,  there  is  no  refuge,  in  the  Bible 
—in  history — utility;  neither  yet  in  reason,  nor  in  com- 


236 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


mon-sense.  Like  Noah's  dove,  because  it  is  not  in  the 
ark  of  Scripture  it  finds  no  rest  for  the  sole  of  its  foot. 
To  this,  however,  we  must  make  an  exception.  For 
though  it  may  be  driven  from  a  variety  of  resting  places, 
it  still  has  a  covert  to  which  it  can  retreat  and  rest  in 
safety — a  strong  hold — 

Intrenched  in  which  defiance  forth  it  flings, 
And  vaunts  alond,  in  face  of  every  foe. 
For  who,  by  art  or  argument  can  move 
The  adamantine  walls  of  prejudice! 
Imbibed  in  youth,  and  blended  with  the  mind, 
From  infancy,  by  training's  every  stroke? 

For  this  opinion,  that  Psalmonism  is  sustained  chiefly 
by  the  prejudice  of  education,  there  are  several  reasons 
— we  olfer  but  a  few. 

The  first  is,  that  there  are  scarcely  any  wh^)  hold  these 
views,  except  such  as  have  been  educated  in  them  from 
their  earliest  infancy.  And  on  the  contrary,  I  suppose 
there  could  scarcely  be  a  man  found,  who, being  educated 
otherwise,  has  embraced  Psalmonism,  because  convinced 
by  investigation.  It  is  admitted,  that  men  perhaps  may  be 
found  who  have  embraced  Psalmonism,  although  other- 
wise educated.  But  their  change  of  views  has  resulted,  not 
from  an  investigation  of  this  subject;  but  altogether  from 
other  circumstances,  viz:  because  they  have  in  some 
way  become  connected  with,  and  been  brought  under 
the  influence  of  Psalmonites.  For  instance,  a  man  may 
unite  with  a  Psalmonistic  church,  not  because  he  thinks 
the  book  of  Psalms  alone  should  be  used  in  praising 
God;  but  merely  because  he  esteems  that  church  as  hol- 
ding the  truth  on  some  other  doctrine.  And  then  by 
mingling  with  the  people,  and  adopting  their  modes  of 
worship,  he  gradually  imbibes  their  views  on  the  subject 
of  Psalmody,  and  commences,  of  course,  to  offer  the 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


237 


usual  arguments  in  their  defence.  And  in  this  manner, 
men  may  become  Psalmonites,  who  were  otherwise  edu- 
cated. But  as  was  said,  I  consider  it  almost  impossible 
to  find  a  man  who  has  adopted  these  views  merely  by  an. 
investigation  of  the  subject  of  Psalmody.  Now,  if  among 
those  who  hold  Psalmonislic  views,  none  have  ever  em- 
braced them  because  convinced  of  their  truth  by  investi- 
gation, then  obviously,  these  views  are  held  by  the  mere 
force  of  educational  prejudice.  And  moreover,  that  the 
system  is  sustained  chiefly  by  the  prejudice  of  education^ 
is  testified  by  the  fact,  that  very  many,  and  not  a  few  of 
them  distinguished  for  piety,  talents,  and  literary  attain- 
ments, who  were  educated  in  the  Psalmonistic  views, 
have  abandoned  these  views;  clearly  proving  that  they 
held  them  for  a  time  by  the  mere  force  of  their  early 
education,  for  after  impartial  investigation  they  renoun- 
ced them,  as  being  without  support  in  the  word  of  God. 

But  again:  another  consideration  which  corroborates- 
the  opinion  that  the  system  is  sustained  by  the  prejudice 
of  education,  is  this,  that  the  Psalmonites  have  held 
other  peculiar  views  in  relation  to  this  part  of  religious 
worship,  the  greater  part  of  which  they  have  now  re- 
linquished, as  having  no  foundation  except  in  prejudice; 
others  of  these  peculiarities  some  Psalmonistic  churches 
still  retain.  Of  these  things  I  have  a  personal  knowl- 
edge, because  I  was  once  a  Psalmonite  myself.  I  held 
the  Psalmonistic  views,  however,  not  because  I  was  con- 
vinced by  investigation,  but  merely  because  my  father 
held  them  before  me.  And  in  my  native  land  this  sub- 
ject has  never  yet  been  fully  investigated:  during  my 
time,  indeed,  it  was  scarcely  ever  mentioned.  Well, 
then,  to  come  right  to  the  point,  I  recollect  when  we  had 
no  small  commotion  in  our  church  about  what  tunes  it 
was  proper  to  sing.     Our  *'singin'  book''  contained 


238 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


twelve  tunes,  or  rather,  I  should  say,  parts  of  twelve 
tunes — eleven  common  metre  and  one  long.  This  book 
was  the  only  one  that  had  been  used  for  generations  j 
hence  it  had  become  truly  consecrated;  and  then  the 
settled  opinion  was,  that  to  sing  anything  except  one  of 
these  "old  twelve  tunes"  was  just  the  same  as  "offering 
strange  fire  before  the  Lord" — nothing  less  than  **a 
human  invention."  For  there  was  a  kind  of  indefinite 
notion  that  David  had  made  these  twelve  tunes,  as  well 
as  Rouse's  paraphrase  of  the  Psalms.  The  opinion  that 
David  was  the  author  of  Rouse's  Psalms  was  quite  pre- 
valent. And  the  proof  is  positive  from  an  adage  which 
was  in  common  use.  When  a  person  wished  to  com- 
pare one  object  with  another  he  would  say  **it's  another 
of  the  same,  like  David  and  the  Psalms;"  clearly  intima- 
ting that  this  phrase,  "another  of  the  same,"  which  is 
found  in  Rouse's  Psalms,  was  taken  to  be  none  other 
than  the  words  of  David.  Thus  these  vague  notions 
prevailed  that  David  w^as  the  author  of  Rouse's  para- 
phrase and  of  the  twelve  old  tunes;  and  hence  the  great 
zeal  in  contending  for  their  use.  On  one  occasion,  the 
regular  "Clerk"  being  absent  from  public  worship,  some 
upstart  rose  to  lead  the  music,  and  to  the  horror  and 
amazement  of  not  a  few  he  struck  up  a  tune  of  "human 
composure,"  not  found  in  the  divinely  appointed  old 
"singin'  book"  at  all!  and  of  course  it  could  not  be  in- 
spired. But  with  the  aid  of  some  radical  new-lights  like 
himself,  he  succeeded  in  getting  through  with  his  "hu^ 
man  invention."  And  it  was  the  means  of  opening  the 
way  for  some  improvement,  inasmuch  as  no  fire  came 
forth  to  devour  him,  for  doing  what  had  "not  the 
sanction  of  the  divine  appointment."  But  what  a  com- 
motion arose!  In  the  opinion  of  some  there  were  dis- 
mal times  coming  upon  the  church!    Good  old  Mr.  — ~ 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


239 


said  that  singing  such  tunes  was  as  bad  as  blasphemy. 
And  it  was  a  subject  of  controversy  for  some  considera- 
ble time,  whether  any  other  tunes  might  be  sung  besides 
the  **old  twelve."  We  could  muster  various  arguments 
to  prove  that  the  twelve  should  be  sung  exclusively. 
For  there  were  twelve  tribes  of  Israel;  and  also  twelve 
Apostles.  And  besides  all  that,  the  New  Jerusalem, 
the  city  of  God,  had  twelve  gates,  and  at  the  gates  twelve 
Angels;  and  it  had  also  twelve  foundations,  garnished 
with  twelve  different  kinds  of  precious  stones.  And 
hence  every  man  who  was  not  carried  away  with  the 
devices  of  a  ''corrupt  and  carnal  age"  could  easily  see 
that  we  should  sing  nothing  but  the  twelve  old  tunes! 
All  these  notions,  however,  about  old  tunes  and  new 
tunes,  have  now  been  abandoned  by  the  Psalmonites. 
And  they  are  ready  to  confess  that  they  had  their  origin 
in  ^practice;  and  were  sustained  only  by  the  prejudice  of 
education.  And  thus  too,  we  can  see  the  cause  of  the 
great  zeal  that  is  manifested  in  behalf  of  the  old  Psalms^ 
But  again:  another  nrtion  entertained  by  Psalmonites, 
and  obviously  sustained  by  the  prejudice  of  education, 
was,  that  not  more  than  one  line  of  the  psalm  ought  to 
be  read  out,  for  singing,  at  the  seme  time.  Those  who 
have  not  seen  this  notion  put  into  practice,  may  not  un- 
derstand what  is  meant;  but  we  may  explain.  Take, 
for  example,  Rouse's  50th  Psalm,  ^'another  of  the  same^''* 
3rd  verse:  the  Clerk  who  leads  the  music  in  the  public 
congregation,  would  read  out — 

''Our  God  shall  come,  and  shall  no  more^^ 
Then  he  must  stop  until  they  sing  these  words,  which, 
taken  by  themselves  intimate  that  God  shall  come  once, 
and  only  once.    When  the  congregation  gets  through 
with  the  singing  of  this,  the  Clerk  reads  out  again — 
*'be  silent  but  speak  out:'' 


240 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


And  there  stops  again,  until  they  sing  about  being  silent, 
while  they  are  speaking  out.    Then  he  reads  again: — 

"Before  him  fire  shall  waste,  great  storms^^ 
And  stops  till  they  sing  about  the  fire  wasting  great 
storms;  and  then  he  reads  out  again:  — 
"shall  compass  him  about/^ — 

Which  has  no  meaning  when  taken  by  itself.  But 
Psalmonites  have  been  just  as  strenuous  for  this  mode 
of  murdering  Rouse's  bad  poetry,  as  they  are  for  the 
poetry  itself.  The  reading  of  two  lines  at  once  was  vio- 
lently opposed,  on  the  ground  of  its  being  an  innovation, 
a  pernicious  human  invention.  For  any  one  could  see  it 
was  unscriptural;  because  the  Bible  says,  "line  upon 
line,  line  upon  linej"  and  hence  the  reading  of  two  lines 
is  without  "the  sanction  of  the  divine  appointment." 
And  for  years  this  controversy  existed,  about  the  pro- 
priety of  reading  one  line,  or  two  lines  of  the  psalm  in 
conducting  the  worship  of  God.  But  now,  at  least  in 
this  country,  it  is  generally  admitted  by  Psalmonites, 
that  the  one  line  theory  has  no  foundation,  except  in 
custom  and  the  prejudice  of  education. 

Then  again,  when  the  New-Lights  had  finally  pre. 
vailed,  and  the  reading  of  two  lines  was  generally  admit- 
ted, there  soon  arose  another  controversy;  some  were 
for  dispensing  with  the  reading  of  lines  altogether.  But 
this  was  violently  opposed  as  another  innovation — an- 
other departure  from  the  truth,  "teaching  for  doctrines 
the  commandments  of  men."  And  when  the  Old-Lights 
could  not  quote  any  Scriptures  very  pertinent,  they 
would  bring  forward  the  authority  of  the  Westminister 
Assembly  as  recommending  the  parcelling  out  of  the 
psalm  before  singing.  Then,  when  the  New-Lights 
would  reply,  that  the  circumstances  had  ceased,  which 
called  for  that  appointment;  because  the  people  could 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


now  read  and  have  books  also;  the  others  would  reply, 
that  we  should  not  pretend  to  know  more  than  the  West- 
minster Assembly;  that  it  was  not  good  to  make  changes, 
for  when  we  got  into  the  downward  road  of  innovation,  it 
was  hard  to  tell  where  we  might  stop;  taking  it  for 
granted,  that  the  improvement  was  the  *'downward  road.'' 
This  prejudice  however,  has  yeilded  considerably  to  the 
influence  of  intelligence  and  common-sense;  and  some 
Psalmonistic  Churches  now  venture  to  sing  without  hav^- 
ing  the  lines  read  out  at  all.  But  the  practice  was  once 
contended  for,  with  about  as  much  zeal  as  is  now  mani- 
fested in  behalf  of  Psalmonism  itself. 

But  again:  another  developement  of  the  prejudice  of 
education  is  seen  in  the  opinion  entertained  as  to  the 
kind  of  tunes  which  ought  to  be  sung.    They  believe  it 
is  not  right  to  sing  any  tune  in  which  there  is  a  repeat, 
or  rather  they  believe  it  is  not  right  to  sing  the  repeat; 
the  words  or  strain  they  will  sing  but  once  and  omit  the 
repeat  altogether.    This  prejudice  obviously  had  its  ori- 
gin in  the  use  of  the  old  Irish  ^'Singin'-book,"  which  con- 
tained the  twelve  tunes;  for  no  one  of  these  had  a  repeat; 
and  having  been  used  so  long  they  became  a  venerated 
standard;  so  that  if  a  repeat  was  to  be  sung  in  any  tune  it 
would  be  considered  exactly  like  the  "sin  of  Nadab  and 
Abihu.'*    And  of  those  guilty  it  v/ould  be  said,  "In  vain 
do  they  worship  me  teaching  for  doctrines  the  command- 
ments of  men,"  or;  "who  hath  required  this  at  your 
hands]"    And  indeed,!  am  not  certain,  that  any  of  the 
Psalmonistic  Churches  have  yet  got  over  this  prejudice, 
as  I  know  that  not  long  since  it  still  exercised  over  them 
its  entire  influence.    And  they  preferred  to  mangle  the 
music  rather  than  murder  their  prejudice.    But  what  is 
it  that  has  not  to  yeild  to  prejudice? 


21 


242 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


^Tis  like  the  stubborn  flinty  rock,  that  fixed, 
Divides  the  flood;  and^s  only  washed  away, 
By  streams  of  ages  in  perpetual  flowo 

Another  evidence  of  Psalmonism  being  upheld  princi- 
pally by  prejudice  appears  from  this,  that  Psalmonistic 
churches  are  composed  cheifly  of  those  who  are  called 
the  Scotch-Irish  population.  In  those  countries,  their 
prejudices  grew  out  of  the  practice  of  using  the  "old 
psalms,''  and  when  they  come  here  they  are  still  retained- 
and  unimpaired,  if  possible,  handed  down  from  one  gen- 
eration to  another.  And  it  is  to  be  lamented,  that  many 
of  them  manifest  far  more  interest  and  zeal  for  these  old 
notions,  than  they  do  in  behalf  of  piety  and  temperance. 
But  the  fact,  that  Psalmonism  is  fostered  only  among 
them,  amounts  to  positive  proof,  that  its  main  support  is 
derived  from  the  prejudice  of  education. 

Psalmonism  then,  being  founded  in  prejudice,  explains 
fully  why  it  is,  that  arguments  have  no  effect  upon  a  gen- 
uine Psalmonite.  Your  reasoning  may  be  as  lucid  as 
light — you  may  demonstrate  to  him,  that  his  system  has 
no  foundation  in  truth;  but  he  clings  to  it  still;  not  be- 
cause he  sees  it  is  right,  but  because  he  feels  it  is  right. 
You  may  set  aside  his  arguments,  but  you  cannot  set 
aside  his  prejudice.  He  is  still  "wiser  in  his  own  con- 
ceit, than  seven  men  that  can  render  a  reason.'*  He  is 
still  partial  to  his  own  way,  though  he  cannot  tell  why — 
he  has  been  accustomed  to  it — his  feelings  incline  him 
to  it — the  truth,  for  truth's  sake,  is  not  what  he  wants — 
he  wants  what  he  likes — and  you  may  as  well  throw 
your  arguments  to  the  winds;  for  on  such  a  man  they 
can  have  no  power.  Nor  is  it  to  be  expected  that  men 
will  readily  change  the  opinions  which  they  have  long 
held;  or  hastily  cease  to  use  that,  to  the  use  of  which 
they  have  long  been  accustomed.    Because  it  is  natural 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY, 


243 


to  acquire  a  fondness  for  whatever  we  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  using  for  any  considerable  time.  We  might 
even  be  convinced  that  a  different  article  could  be  ad- 
vantageously used,  and  yet  be  unwilling  to  exchange 
it  for  our  own  old  one,  with  which  we  are  familiar,  and 
for  which,  by  long  continued  use,  there  has  grown  up  a 
very  considerable  attachment.  We  might  find  it  hard  to 
convince  the  old  man  of  seventy  that  his  crooked,  rough' 
headed  cane,  which  he  has  made  his  associate  for  half 
a  century,  ought  to  be  exchanged  for  another — that  his 
old  companion  ought  to  be  thrown  aside  even  for  the 
sake  of  one  both  smooth  and  straight.  And  so,  upon 
this  principle  we  may  easily  account  for  the  fondness 
with  which  people  cling  to  the  use  of  Rouse's  Psalms. 
When  they  have  been  accustomed  to  the  use  of  these 
psalms  from  childhood,  through  manhood,  and  down  to 
old  age,  it  would,  indeed,  be  hard  to  convince  them  that 
any  other  system  of  Psalmody  is  to  be  preferred.  And 
even  when  in  judgment  they  are  convinced  as  to  the 
propriety  of  using  a  Gospel  Psalmody  in  the  worship  of 
God,  their  own  private  practice  often  remains  the  same, 
in  consequence  of  the  fondness  and  familiarity  existing 
between  them  and  their  old  psalms,  with  wliich  they  are 
now  so  well  acquainted  by  long-continued  use. 

And  inasmuch  as  the  prejudice  by  which  Psalmonisnj 
is  mainly  supported,  has  been  handed  down  from  one 
generation  to  another,  it  requires  the  influence  of  various 
circumstances,  to  bear  upon  it  for  about  the  same  num- 
ber of  generations,  before  it  can  be  made  to  disappear. 
But  if  a  man's  prejudices  be  cherished,  by  pursuing  a 
certain  course  in  relation  to  certain  subjects,  instead  of 
being  destroyed  they  will  cling  with  unabated  vigor  to 
him  through  life.  And  this  is  the  very  course  pursued 
by  many  Psalmonites.    They  are  so  completely  under 


244 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


the  influence  of  prejudice  that  they  cannot  be  persuaded 
to  examine  any  but  the  one  side  of  the  controversy. 
Indeed  I  have  been  astonished  to  find  them  pursuing  a 
course  in  relation  to  this  subject,  which  I  had  supposed 
none  w^ould  pursue  in  matters  of  religion,  except  Roman 
Catholics.  And  how  fundly  will  this  prejudice  be  cher- 
ished when  a  man  believes  that  in  acting  agreeably  to  it 
he  is  in  the  discharge  of  his  duty ;  when  he  is  taught 
that  it  is  commendable  in  him  to  be  unyielding,  and  tena- 
ciously to  hold  his  own  opinions  without  irquiry,  and 
notwithstanding  light  and  proof  may  be  offered  even  to 
demonstration.  Dr.  Pressly  is  aware  of  the  influence  of 
such  convictions;  and  hence,  he  exhorts  Psalmonites  in 
the  following  language: — *'In  conclusion,  let  me  say  to 
all  who  love  the  truth  as  in  Jesus,  and  particularly  to 
those  who  love  the  songs  of  Zion  above  the  songs  of 
uninspired  men,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  piety  of 
their  authors,  or  the  evangelical  character  of  their  senti- 
ments,— *My  beloved  brethren,  be  ye  steadfast,  unmova- 
ble,  always  abounding  in  the  work  of  the  Lord,  foras- 
much as  ye  know  that  your  labor  is  not  in  vain  in  the 
Lord.' This  language,  addressed  to  Psalmonites,  is 
just  exhorting  them  to  be  as  dogged  and  unyielding  as 
possible;  to  cling  to  their  own  notions,  though  again  and 
again  it  may  be  shown  that  they  ore  without  any  sup- 
port in  the  word  of  God.  Thus  also  the  Priest  exhorts 
his  people  to  count  their  heads,  and  mutter  over  their 
Ave-Marias,  because  it  is  useful,  and  by  no  means  shall 
their  labor  be  in  vain.  And  as  the  Doctor  says  that  in 
contending  for  Psalmonisra  the  labor  of  his  belove^l 
brethren  is  not  in  vain,  may  we  not  well  ask  him  what 
they  have  accomplished  or  what  they  are  accomplishing? 
Because  he  does  not  specify  a  single  advantage  which 
has  resulted  from  their  pertinacious  steadfastness  in 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


245 


dinging  to  their  peculiar  notions.  Indeed  it  is  obvious 
that  to  show  the  advantages  was  not  his  intention;  but  he 
knew  well  that  with  many  people  such  an  exhortation 
would  have  much  more  weight  than  even  to  point  out 
the  advantages  resulting  from  their  conduct.  Though 
he  cannot  show  them  that  their  labor  is  not  in  vain,  yet 
he  can  tell  them  that  it  is  not,  and  this  he  knows  will 
fully  answer  his  purpose. 

The  manner,  indeed,  in  which  this  controversy  is 
managed  by  their  clergy,  has  a  great  influence  in  fos- 
tering the  prejudices  of  the  people.  They  endeavor  to 
cherish  the  opinion  among  them  that  they  are  acting  a 
very  worthy  part,  in  contending  against  the  use  of  a 
Gospel  Psalmody:  that  they  thereby  manifest  especial 
friendship  for  God,  and  due  regard  for  his  authority: 
that  they  alone  are  keeping  pure  and  entire  the  worship 
which  He  hath  appointed  in  his  word.  And  conse- 
quently, they  must  be  the  peculiar  favorites  of  Heaven, 
since  they  show  so  niuch  respect  for  the  appointments 
of  Heaven,  and  are  so  very  conscientious  in  observing 
whatever  that  high  Authority  has  ordained! — While  at 
the  same  time  they  are  utterly  unable  to  show  that 
Heaven  has  ordained  this  for  which  they  contend.  And 
then,  too,  the  people  are  taught  to  believe  that  Rouse's 
Psalms  are  inspired,  while  those  of  Watts  are  uninspired 
— that  the  one  is  divine  composition,  while  the  other  is 
human  composition — that  the  use  of  one  is  commanded, 
while  the  use  of  the  other  is  teaching  for  doctrines  the 
commandments  of  men- — that  the  use  of  the  one  is  the 
observance  of  God's  own  ordinance,  while  the  use  of 
the  other  is  offering  strange  fire  before  the  Lord — that 
the  one  is  orthodoxy,  while  the  other  is  heresy,  etc.,  etc. 
Such  representations  as  these,  and  the  very  epithets 
employed,  have  a  great  influence  on  the  minds  of  the 


246 


MORTON  ON  PSALxMODY. 


people.  Dr.  Pressly  being  aware  of  this,  and  fearing 
that  the  old  epithets  might  lose  their  power,  is  ever  care- 
ful to  invent  new  ones.  He  has  said,  for  instance,  that 
be  was  contending  for  ''God's  Psalm  Book.''  And  then, 
could  any  man  have  the  hardihood  to  contend  against 
him]  Who  would  dare  to  fight  against  the  cause  of 
God?  But  this  has  always  been  th^  policy  of  those 
conscious,  that  they  are  the  guides  of  a  people  who  are 
led  by  sound,  not  by  sense.  Thus  the  Popes  of  Rome, 
in  all  their  usurpations,  always  cried  out  that  they  were 
contendinor  for  th^  cause  of  reliorion — for  God's  Church. 
And  so  Dr.  Pressly  cries  out  that  he  is  contending  for 
^'God's  Psalm  Book,"  knowing  that  this  will  be  far  more 
persuasive  with  a  certain  class  of  people,  than  the  most 
conclusive  reasoning. 

The  Doctor,  indeed,  not  only  thus  fosters  this  blind 
prejudice,  but  avowedly  advocates  it  as  something  com- 
mendable. On  p.  33,  respecting  Dr.  Ralston,  he  says, 
"*!  am  sorry  to  hear  my  venerable  Father  using  language 
of  this  character.  There  is  prevailing  in  this  nineteenth 
•century  a  disposition,  at  least,  sufficiently  strong  to  'rise 
above  the  prejudice  of  education;'  and  I  do  not  like  to 
hear  the  wisdom  and  experience  of  hoary  hairs  employ- 
ing language  so  soothing  to  this  proud  spirit."  *  *  * 
*'Have  we  not  seen  men  who,  being  taught  by  their  good 
mothers  the  wholesome  doctrines  of  the  Shorter  Cate- 
chism, have,  even  before  their  beards  were  grown,  con- 
ceived the  idea  of  rising  above  'the  prejudice  of  educa- 
tion;' and  in  the  indulgence  of  this  spirit  have  rejected 
some  of  the  great  doctrines  of  Christianity  as  the  relics 
of  a  barbarous  age?"  Now,  does  not  the  Doctor  pay  a 
fine  compliment  here  to  the  intelligence  of  Christians'? 
when  he  represents  them  as  holding  "the  great  doctrines 
of  Christianity,"  not  by  an  enlightened  conviction  of 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


247 


their  truth  and  excellence;  but  just  by  the  prejudice  of 
education]  Young  men,  he  says,  before  their  beards 
are  grown,  rise  above  the  prejudice  of  education,  and 
therefore  reject  some  of  the  great  doctrines  of  Christi- 
anity; hence  it  is  only  those  who  do  not  thus  rise,  that  re- 
tain those  doctrines!  Now  I  am  certain  that  every  intelli- 
gent Christian  cannot  but  feel  indignant  at  such  a  slander 
upon  himself  and  his  en  lightening  religion!  Andm  order 
to  foster  prejudice,  by  giving  an  erroneous  idea  of  what 
it  is,  see  how  the  Doctor  artfully  confounds  pious  pa- 
rental instruction  with  the  prejudice  of  education.  When 
men  disregard  the  wholesome  instruction  of  their  good 
mothers,  he  represents  them  as  only  rising  above  the 
prejudice  of  education!  And  accordingly,  when  chil- 
dren are  trained  up  **iri  the  nurture  and  admonition  of 
the  Lord,"  they  are  only  prejudiced  in  favor  of  religion! 
It  would  really  seem  that  the  Doctor  can  scarcely  touch 
any  thing  connected  with  the  subject  of  Psalmody^ 
without  perverting  it  into  falsehood.  Perhaps  it  may 
satisfy  Psalmonites  to  have  their  children  prejudiced 
in  favor  of  their  religion;  but  every  well  informed 
and  intelligent  Christian,  will  endeavor  to  have  his 
children  instructed  in  the  knowledge  of  the  trulh,  in 
order  that  they  may  be  able,  "to  give  a  reason  of  the 
hope  that  is  in  them  with  meekness  and  fear/' 
If  the  prejudice  of  education,  is  a  good  thing,  in  matters 
of  religion,  as  the  Doctor  teaches,  it  must  be  a  good 
thing  among  Pagans  and  Papists,  as  well  as  among  Psal- 
monites. But  this  pleading  for  prejudice,  on  the  part  of 
the  Doctor,  evinces  clearly,  that  he  is  conscious  of  it  be- 
ing the  main  support  of  his  darling  cause.  For  just  let 
this  sightless  prejudice  be  once  destroyed,  and  the  cause 
of  Psalmonism  falls  into  hopeless  ruin.  And  the  Doctor 
knows  this,  hence  he  becomes  the  advocate  of  blind 


248 


MORTON  ON  PSALMODY. 


prejudice,  rather  than  suffer  to  fall,  a  cause,  which  he 
knows  to  be  indefensible,  on  principles  of  righteousness 
and  truth. 

But  the  propriety  of  using  a  Gospel  Psalmody  in  the 
worship  of  God  will  yet  be  admitted  by  all  His  people; 
because  the  truth  must  eventually  prevail.  For  a  time 
of  joy  and  concord  is  promised  to  the  children  of  God; 
when  Zion's  watchmen  shall  lift  up  the  voice;  with  the 
voice  together  shall  they  sing;  and  psalms  and  hymns 
and  spiritual  songs  make  vocal  all  the  congregations  of 
the  saints.  In  relation  to  this  delightful  part  of  divine 
worship  there  will  then  be  no  diversity  of  sentiment 
among  the  people  of  the  Lord,  And  if  there  is  division 
among  them  now,  it  is  culpable ;  but  "on  those  who  for- 
sake, and  not  on  those  who  hold  fast  the  law  and  the 
testimony,  must  the  fault  of  division  lie."  Yet  all  who 
love  Zion  and  her  sacred  songs,  are  unanimous  in  offer- 
ing their  supplications,  that  these  divisions  may  speedily 
be  bealed;  and  the  joyful  day  arrive  to  bless  the  Church, 
when  her  watchmen,  and  all  her  children,  can  together 
lift  up  the  voice  and  sing: — 

* 'Glory  be  to  God  the  Father, 

Glory  to  the  eternal  Son  ; 
Sound  aloud  the  Spirit^s  praises  ; 
Join  the  elders  round  the  throne ; 
Hallelujah, 
Hail  the  glorious  Three  in  One  1'^ 


